Loading...
1992-12-16 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16TH. 1992 INDEX '0 RIG I N A l Notice of Appeal No. 3-92 James Mehalick Victor Thomas 1. Area Variance No. 110-1992 Area Variance No. 125-1992 Use Variance No. 126-1992 Area Variance No. 118-1992 Area Variance No. 128-1992 Richard Broome 11. Malvern & Carolyn Tippett 22. Hugh & Karen Sinclair 25. Hugh & Karen Sinclair 28. Dr. & Mrs. Robert Birchenough 29. Use Variance No. 130-1992 Guido Passarelli 36. Area Variance No. 72-1992 Gerald & Wanda Bulger 60. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL BE SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16TH. 1992 1:38 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY 'fHOMAS PHILO CHRIS THOMAS CHARLIE SICARD MARIE PALING FRED CARVIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAMES MEHALICK VICTOR THOMAS MR. TURNER-And this concerns the property of International Broadcasting Corp. doing business as the Great Escape. Mrs. Eggleston will Chair this application since I have a conflict with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-We had previously closed the public hearing, and tonight we're going to render the Board's decision in the matter. So. I guess we're open to discussion amongst the Board members. before we make our motion, and we have Paul here for questions that anybody has. We've looked at this a long time, Paul. I think I'm pretty clear, in my mind, how I look at this, in that, for the rest of my Board members here, I don't know how they feel, but I don't consider it a minor expansion of the Park. I consider it a large expansion, and I also think that under Section, where the swimming pool class was picked uP. I thought that, if you look in your book, here, that the accessory use of swimming pool follows the permitted uses of single family dwelling. is how I reached my decision that it really should have gone a different route. here. MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could just point out something to you. I took a look through the accessory uses, because I noted that that was one of the questions, is whether this is an accessory use, and I think, actually, I think there's multiple questions, here, like there was the other night before the Board. but just to jump to that one, first, since you did raise that. under Accessory Uses, I note that it starts off with swimming pool. outdoor athletic court facilities, private garage. All those would tend to lead you down the path of thinking, well, they're talking about things in connection with homes. but then all of a sudden something changes at the very end, and that change is, they talk about non-enclosed decks for restaurants, clubs, taverns, bar purposes. What that tends to indicate to me is that the accessory uses that they're thinking of here could be any kind of accessory use that's listed, not just designated towards a residential. So, I'd point that out to you, in the event that. if I understand you to be going down the path that you think that these accessory uses are only residential, I think that last one throws a real clink in the plan, in terms of that analysis. Also, if you go back to the definition of Accessory Uses, I don't believe that the definition in the Statute says that they're strictly residential. It says a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the character of the permitted principal use, and it goes on and talks about principal buildings. It talks about zoning districts, generically, but it doesn't talk about just residential zoning districts. I think when you read that you have to come to the conclusion that they're talking about all kinds of 1 accessory es to different types of uses. not just .ecessarily residentia.L. MR. CARVIN-Again, I partially agree with you there. Paul. I think there's really a couple of major issues here. I think the first issue that has to be addressed is the same as the Parillo case, did the Zoning Administrator exceed their authority in issuing the determination, and then second. I think, is the issue that you're addressing, is the sWimming pool really an accessory use to the amusement park, and I think I might open up a third one, is it subject to site plan review, and I tend to agree with Joyce. I think. Number One. as in Parillo, I think the Zoning Administrator did have the authority to issue her determination, but that was. again, subject to review. In other words, as are most of these decisions, and in her decision, she specifies the zoning for the Fun Park is recreational commercial and. therefore. is a permitted use in an amusement center. This proposal is an accessory use incidental to the permitted use and will not require a Board approval. Now that part I take exception to. Because I do support Joyce, in that I think that this is a sUbstantially different use to the amusement park that's there. and therefore I would think that this does alter the character of that particular situation. I feel very similar to what Joyce is saying. is that I think that this is an expansion. MRS. EGGLESTON-I will say, too. Paul. I think in the past that we have followed the criteria that the accessory uses follow the permi tted uses. Anything really. it comes down to that illustrative thing where you can read into that word "illustrative", where we got into the big battle about some of the things. Some people argued that it was illustrative. but we had gone by what was in the book. I mean. we didn't use it as illustrative. I think we've done that in the past. In facrt :6 had made a motion, or a determination that we wõu!d no use illustrative. MR. DUSEK-You're right, but then the Town Board did change the law and they said that you will use it as illustrative. So. I think that defeats the. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have a thing on that? MR. DUSEK-It's actually in the book. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's been amended. MR. DUSEK-So, that would defeat this Board's interpretation to stay strictly with the exact words used. but I think as Fred was leading to, if I may point out, that there are multiple issues here. I think. if I could just cite what I saw, to the Board, maybe this will be helpful, because I think you're heading towards what I see is like about the third issue on the list, and maybe if we clear up that confusion. you might get to where you guys want to be. in terms of your actual discussion. I think the first issue that Fred saw. and that I saw as well, and also the applicant saw, that's Mrs. Crayford's determination. decision. and Fred's indicated his view on that. The second thing that I saw is. what is permitted or not permitted with site plan review. and you go down the list and it tells you that you have. in this District, you have, One. Permitted Uses. and that is, a use that is permitted without site plan review. obviously. single family homes. Then if you look down, the next thing it says that the next uses that are available in a Recreation Commercial District are your accessory uses. Once again. I think if you look at the way it's laid out in the Statute. these are obviously things that don't need site plan review, if it's an accessory use. Then you go down to Number Three, which deals with those items that do need site plan review. So. I think. if you look down through there, you get through that issue. and then also if you look at the non-enclosed deck. like I say. I think you've got to really read that to say, these are all the types of 2 things tha they feel that would be allowed. Then _::e you get past that, ~f you buy into that, the next issue, I think, becomes whether the Sprayground is an accessory use or it's an expansion. and I think that's really the issue you're trying to get to, before the Board. and of course. that's a factual determination for your Board to make, based upon all of the past decisions that your Board has made, together with the particular facts that are here. I've gotten a request from Mr. Lemery. asking if the attorneys will be able to briefly address the Board before you make a decision. MRS. EGGLESTON-Paul. we've done this three times, and I said last time I was going to close the publ ic hearing, and gave them 10 minutes to say what they wanted to say. JOHN LEMERY MR. LEMERY-I represent the new owner, ma'am. which is the only reason I'm asking to speak here this evening. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. DUSEK-I think maybe if I could help the Board in this regard. there is one thing that's different in this case, and of course what you always try to do, and I know this Board certainly always does this, and that is to be fair in terms of allowing the people to be heard. The one thing you have before you that's kind of new is that I'm speaking to you and maybe at the appropriate time you may want to hear from both of these gentlemen to hear their viewpoints, as to some of the things that I'm saying, and then also as Mr. Lemery has indicated. there is a change of counsel, here. at this point, so you may want to hear from the new counsel, as well. just so that your record is complete. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. THOMAS-I think you're going to have to open the public hearing back up again. in order for anybody to speak, to get it on the record, to make it legal. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Do you want to give your things. first, then we'll open the public hearing? MR. THOMAS-I'd rather open the pUblic hearing first. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We'll open the public hearing back up. MR. PHILO-That's fair. MR. THOMAS-Just give them each 10 minutes again. MR. SICARD-Paul, did the Glen Lake Association get into this? They did. didn't they, the last time? MR. DUSEK-I'm not sure. I wasn't at your earlier meetings. So. I don't know if they were participating or not. MR. CARVIN-Not the Glen Lake. MRS. PALING-Was this advertised for tonight? public hearing again? Can we open the MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PALING-I didn't think it was. I didn't see it in the paper. MR. MARTIN-It wasn't. because it was thought to be just a decision. The two counsels were notified of the placement on the agenda, but it was not noticed. as it was just thought to be a decision by the Board tonight. 3 MR. DUSEK-- 1uess I don't see it as necessarily a put c hearing, and let me Sây this. It's totally up to the Board whether you hear from counselor not. That's totally your option. No question about that, and no law says you have to hear from them. On the other hand, I don't think anything restricts you from necessarily talking to the two counsels that are here tonight, if you want. MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think anything restricts us, if we have a question that needs clarifying, that we can get your input. I'm not sure I want to go through the whole. MR. MARTIN-The thing I might suggest is that you couch it in such a manner that if new information can, in effect, be brought forth by either counsel, then that's worth hearing, rather than just a restatement of what you've already heard. I would condition it in that way. MR. PHILO-Myself, I'd like to be as fair with both parties as possible. Set a time limit on it, like Mr. Thomas said go with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, we are not opening the public hearing. just going to let these two attorneys have a 10 minute say. we've got to make the decision if we're going to let you, right? We're First, is that MR. DUSEK-Right. The Board has to decide. It's totally up to the Board, at this point. MRS. PALING-One of the reasons is we have a new owner, and a new attorney, right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I realize that. MRS. PALING-So that changes it a tad. MR. CARVIN-Well, it doesn't really change the issues, is my feeling. In other words, the issues still come down to three or four items, here. MRS. PALING-But this gentleman represents the new owner who didn't have a chance to speak at our last meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what happened back then has nothing to do with the new owner, in a real sense. MR. CARVIN-See, what I'm saying is that the issue still comes down to whether the Zoning Board, or the Zoning Administrator had her ability to make the decision, whether it's a permitted use, essentially, accessory use, is it an expansion, and is it subject to site plan review. MR. DUSEK-That's really it, I think. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I don't mind if they address their feelings on these four issues. I just, again, don't want to open up a whole new can of worms about, well, gee, the property was taxed as one separate parcel, and all of the reams and reams and reams. I think that if we can zero in on the crux of the matter, if they wish to clarify their positions as to these issues, I don't have a problem. I just don't want to get bogged down into a 20 minute dissertation that just confuses the whole issue again. MR. DUSEK-Well, I don't think you really want new evidence, at this point, because then that would really be a proper forum for a public hearing anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. 4 JOHN HAKO MR. HAKO-Madame Chairman. could I just get two words in on that. It would appear that the reason that we would be here is to try to sway or persuade the Board as to a particular position. which I do not believe can be done outside the context of a public hearing. Both sides have had substantial opportunity to address the issues. We've made our presentation. Mr. Judge was before the Board. there was no indication that there were any changes or amendments to the plans that the Great Escape had submitted. at least none to my knowledge have been submitted to the Zoning or Building Department as of this date. If the purpose of us getting back on the microphone is to make our points again. which was done at the last meeting. it would appear that you'd have to open the public hearing to do that. or you shouldn't listen to us at all. because if we're here to try to sway or make somebody change their decision. that's an appealable issue. if we wanted to approach that. or if they wanted to approach that. Simply because a public hearing was closed. and it would appear to me that if it's allowed to have last minute discussions saying. gee. that's a good point for either side tonight. it would not be fair to either party to reopen the can of worms. I mean. you're going to do it. no matter what. as long as you let either one of us. MR. DUSEK-I think. in fairness. now. Lemery on at least that issue. right? thing out. you should hear from Mr. I mean. to balance this MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. Mr. Lemery. You're going to answer this gentleman's. MR. LEMERY-No. I'm not. because he's just making comments that I would rather not respond to. MR. HAKO-I don't believe the Board has yet made a decision whether they're going to allow comments. MR. LEMERY-You've had a chance to speak about being an advocate for your client. I just wanted to acquaint the Board with the change of management and ownership of the Great Escape since the last meeting. which it seems to me is relevant. but I'm certainly willing to go back to my seat and await the determination of the Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you think. Paul? MR. PHILO-I want to be as fair as possible with this thing. Paul. but what is the legality? I want to be fair with everybody in this Town. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think. in all honesty. we all know Mr. Wood now owns the Park. You'd have to live in a dungeon not to know that. and never read a paper or go outdoors. I mean. we all are aware of that. I believe. if that was Mr. Lemery's point. MR. LEMERY-Actually. having read the file. I have a comment. It seems to me in an important matter like this. when you're always trying to balance competing interests. that it's important that everybody get a chance to be heard. I don't believe you have to open up a pUblic hearing. You're in a position where you're making a decision. The Town Attorney has commented on certain issues. but I don't have a history with it. other than since the time since Story town USA. Inc. reacquired these assets. So. I have a very short comment about it. MR. HAKO-From my understanding. they are under contract to purchase it. They have not actually purchased it. MR. LEMERY-That's not correct. The transaction is closed. 5 MR. PHILO- ul. what is the legality of opening tho minutes. l~~e Mr. Thomas said? up for 10 MR. DUSEK-Well. that's what I'm trying to. I'm racing through my own mind. trying to give this some thought. It seems to me that when you hold a public hearing. and you gather all your information. that's one phase of the thing that the Board is doing. and certainly you don't want to repeat a public hearing without having it duly noticed. On the other hand. while the Board is making its decision. if it has questions. or wants to hear from somebody. I don't know that that's improper. I don't recall any case that I've read that would say that a Board can't further hear from people if they feel it would be of value to them in deciding the opinion. I just think that if you did hear from one attorney. for instance. you should hear from the other attorney. so it's balanced. MRS. EGGLESTON-But he raises the question about an appealable. if we open the public hearing again. MR. DUSEK-Well. a public hearing is where you're picking up information concerning the evidence regarding a situation. I think now what you're at a point of is we're talking points of law and just generally the issue with the Board. I mean. I guess a lot of it depends on what the attorneys say. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We don't know what they're going to say. MR. DUSEK-That's part of the problem. MR. THOMAS-That's the thing of it. Article 78. If this thing gets into an MRS. EGGLESTON-Paul. if I were to say. we'll give them each five minutes. would that be out of order? Would that be fair? I. myself. think we. and Fred and I. we both feel. we're discussing issues here between Mehalick. Thomas. and the IBC. before Mr. Wood purchased it back. So. I think. in a way. that really. whatever Mr. Lemery now has to say. we're dealing with an issue in the past. He might not like it. but I don't see where that has a reflection on what's happened in the past. MR. THOMAS-Really. nothing has changed at Story town. I mean. the slide is there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I mean. just because it changes ownership doesn't mean that anything else there is going to change. Whatever they said. I don't see how it could shed any new light onto this. I mean. there's nothing they could say that could change anything right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We've heard it all. MR. THOMAS-We've heard it all. MR. CARVIN-The only thing I'd like to see. maybe. is a little more discussion as far as the Board can zero in on specifics. and then if we wanted to allow them five minutes each to address those specific issues. in other words. whether they're for or against. I mean. I don't think that's really opening up the public hearing. Essentially all it is is just clarifying questions that we have on these issues. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we're going to hear the same thing again. and we've heard it three times. MR. CARVIN-Well. but we're going to limit it to five minutes. I guess. is my feeling. 6 MRS. EGGLE )N-Well. so far. are we all in agreement.,__/hat. or do you agree ~h Fred and my opinion. that what we discussed to begin with. about it should have site plan review? MRS. PALING-Yes. definitely. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree. it should have site plan review. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So we're all on the same wavelength. as far as that goes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don't think we need to hear from anybody else on this. MRS. PALING-I don't think we do. either. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. DUSEK-What's the decision of the Board? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. we're all in agreement that it should have gone to site plan review. MR. DUSEK-No. no. in terms of your procedure. How are you going to operate? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. they don't want to hear from anybody else. I'm going to concur with them. I think we've heard it all. We've heard three times. I don't know what happens if we let one back in and then the other back in. and I don't know what Mr. Lemery could offer that we haven't heard. We heard from the people who actually were there. Mr. Lemery was not privy to all that was there. at that time. MR. DUSEK-Well. I don't know that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. he wasn't their attorney. We know that. don't we? Mr. Wayne Judge was. MR. DUSEK-You mean during your proceedings he was the attorney? Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And he represented IBC. MR. DUSEK-First of all. as I mentioned. I think it's a judgement call. I'm trying to sort this out in my mind. obviously. too, trying to debate. you know. there is a strong thing about going through your public hearings. getting all your information and making your decision. and doing it in that fashion. and not going back. On the other hand. I also know that the courts have not held Zoning Boards to the strictest of evidentiary type proof situations like you would normally see in the Court. Like when you go into a court room and you present your evidence. and then you rest your case. That's it. You're done. Then you give your closing arguments. but I don't. the cases that I've read. I don't think the courts hold you to that kind of high standard. I think that what they're looking for is that you were fair. and I think that what was suggested earlier. that if you wanted to discuss the case among yourselves first. and then after you've discussed it among yourselves. if you feel. at that point. that it would be appropriate to ask some questions of the attorneys. or hear from the attorneys in some fashion. I'll go out on a limb here, at this point. but I don't think it's going to be wrong for you to do that. I really don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-We'll follow that procedure, then. MR. PHILO-I'd feel better if I heard whatever they had to say. MRS. PALING-You're going to give them each five minutes. Yes. 7 MRS. EGGLE~N-Okay. in agreemel_ _. We've reached our consensus her« We're all -..;' MR. THOMAS-Did we discuss all four points? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I don't know if you got to all four. MR. THOMAS-Why don't you run down those four points. Administrator. The Zoning MR. CARVIN-As I see it, it's the Zoning Administrator, the decision, Number Two, what is permitted and what is not, in other words, is the swimming pool a permitted use or isn't it. Number Three, is it an accessory, which I think is the big issue, and then Number Four, the site plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were those the four you had in mind, Paul? We never did get to your four. The first one was, did the Zoning Administrator have authority. The second one was what is permitted or not permitted. Three, is it an accessory use, and four, site plan. MR. DUSEK-Yes. I think these issues are somewhat tied up together in some instances. For instance, when you look at the thing and you say, is it a permitted or not permitted with site plan review, you know, that goes into that analysis of how that Statute reads, and then your third question there, in terms of, is it an accessory use, I think that's in connection with, that's assuming that you find that these accessory uses apply to both businesses and residences a like. Then you see this E where it says, any other accessory use customarily or incidental to the permitted use, I think then the question becomes, is this ride or amusement, whatever it is, is that an accessory use as it is thought of here, or is it an expansion of the Park. I think if you find that it's an expansion of the Park, 179-32 says that an expansion goes to site plan review. So, they're sort of intertwined on you here a little bit. I'm just checking my Code book to make sure I quoted the correct Section to you here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I'm sure that's the right one. MR. DUSEK-Yes, 179-32 says, a land use or development involving a use or an expansion of a use listed as site plan review shall not be undertaken unless the Planning Board has proved it. So, what you're really looking at, in that regard, is they're saying, if you have a site plan review type item, and it's an expansion, if you find it's an expansion, then they go back to site plan review. On the other hand, if you find that it's an accessory, which is identified under those accessory uses then they don't need site plan review. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SICARD-That's pretty clear. being an expansion. There's no question about it MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. So, we're fine here, now, amongst ourselves? Okay. We'll open, Mr. Lemery, for five minutes, and we would ask that you stick to those four issues, if you could, Mr. Lemery. Do you have something that would be helpful to those four issues? MR. LEMERY-Actually, I don't, and I'll tell you why, and I won't be more than three minutes, actually. My name is John Lemery, and I represent Story town USA, Inc., which has reacquired the assets of the Great Escape, the closing took place last week, and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Story town USA, Inc. is Charles R. Wood. I read the Zoning Statute, and particularly as it applies to this Section which you're dealing with, and I don't know how anybody can make a decision or interpret this appropriately or 8 right, bec' ~e I think it's very confusing, and I thil it puts an applicant i~ a situation where, and keep in mind the applicants are either residents of the Town, or businesses in the Town and make substantial investments, whether it's Mr. Wood or whoever. I think it puts them in a situation where they come in here, relying on the Zoning Administrator to interpret and figure out what's in the Code, particularly as it relates to this Section and I've been around a long time as a lawyer, and do a lot of transactions, and I can't figure it out. So, what I really want to say to you is that this seems to me to be sort of a tilting at windmills type of transaction. Someone comes in, goes to the Zoning Administrator, wants to put something in his park, gets an interpretation, or goes back and based on the decision of the Zoning Administrator, goes ahead and makes a capital investment and later on is challenged, not by the neighbors, but by a competing water park owner, and I have to tell you tonight that the Code of professional ethics requires us as lawyers, when we're before an administrative body, to tell you who we represent, who our principal is, and who's paying us, when we're before an administrative body. So, if Mr. Koncikowski is paying for this, then what we have here is a competing property owner. So, it seems to me that when all is said and done, you have to come down in favor of the applicant and your town resident and your town business, when there is a confusing situation that, in fact, doesn't harm anybody and takes place within the confines of this park. You can't get into this water area unless you buy a ticket to admission and come into the park. Now, what the decision ends up here tonight, if you send us back, is that the Great Escape, now, goes back and does a site plan review of a situation that's already in existence, and which was built on the good faith of this Town and its employees. So, while I recognize that we have to have adequate and responsible town planning, you can't take a Statute that is confusing at best and construe it against an applicant. It seems to me that if we're going to balance competing interests and we're going to encourage economic development and expansion of the tax base in the Town of Queensbury, and again, with a situation like this, that you'd have to come down in favor of the applicant, unless someone's interest is truly harmed, and I don't see that here. I don't see that common sense, here, requires that you go back and do a site plan review on a facility that's already in existence. Otherwise, Ladies and Gentlemen, it's massive form over substance, costs a lot more money, and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Mr. Wood intends to develop this Park to serve the interests of the community. He bought it back because it was in bankruptcy. He intends to straighten it out. He intends to improve it. He intends to make it what it was all the years that he owned it, and make it into an economically viable corporate citizen again. So I hope you'll keep that in mind, when making this decision, because I don't see that there's any practical common sense decision that says send it back to site plan review. If the Zoning Administrator couldn't figure it out, I can understand her situation, because I couldn't figure it out either. Thank you for your time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you, Mr. Lemery. MR. HAKO-Good evening, Madame Chairman and members of the Board. John Hako, attorney for Mr. Mehalick and Mr. Thomas. I think it has been stated on record by myse lf be fore that we do, indeed, represent Mr. Koncikowski, who is not a resident of the Town, but we, in this application, represent Mr. Thomas and Mr. Mehalick, who are both Town residents and have businesses in the Town. So, certainly the Town resident issue is fairly even handed, as far as the interests involved. We would like to explain that the reliance upon Patricia Crayford's decision that was made back in May. The Zoning Board has original jurisdiction, and we've cited many cases to that effect, to interpret the Zoning Ordinance is what this Board is here to do. Your Board has prescribed forms, in the past, that deal with interpretations only. So, if the Zoning Administrator or anybody in charge of zoning cannot make an administerial decision based upon the clear provisions and terms 9 that are Sl forth in the Code. that this is somethin~ hat should be appeale\..-- to the Board for purposes of interpretation or review or their opinion based upon counsel. Our position has long been that she exceeded her authority in making the determination based upon what Mr. Lemery agrees is confusing. and I think when it's confusing it has to go here or it has to go to the Planning Board. It can't just be a determination made by the administrative officer. Lastly. common sense doesn't require site plan re-review. or a re-review of a project that's already been built. I would just state that. again, we've put in our records that that's happened before with the Great Escape and with Mr. Wood with the Bavarian Palace, and the purpose of the site plan review isn't to just allow something or to rubber stamp something that's already been built. It's to give the owner or the further applicant guidelines within which he can expect he'll be able to build or propose new things to go into the Park. That is the whole reason we've been here, on behalf of the applicants, and not on behalf of the neighbors, but the neighbors have been here on many occasions to give their opinions. or to us. and to be present to see what was happening. and certainly they are interested that something isn't allowed to expand beyond their reasonable control or not see they're town officials be able to review that expansion, and that is. essentially, why we came here to begin with, was to not allow something like that to go unchecked, allow something like that to go before the proper Board for the proper review to serve the public interest, and I thank you very much. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome. Okay. Are we ready for a motion, here? Is everybody set? Are your opinions still the same? MR. DUSEK-Joyce, during your deliberations. I've given some thought. I do feel I have to comment on at least one point of law, as your attorney, trying to help you through the process. Mr. Hako commented on something about interpretations and the Board's original jurisdiction, and I think I should just address that. because I really believe that, based on all the research I've done in the past, and also with knowledge of how this Board used to do things, back about four years ago or so, and the research that I did at that point in time, I came to the conclusion that this Board does not have original jurisdiction insofar as interpretations are concerned, that the way it gets to this Board is by operation of an appeal of some decision that a Zoning Administrator has made. or by way of an application for a variance or something of that nature. The basis for that is not only my research of reading cases and whatnot, but it's your very own Ordinance. Your Ordinance tells you exactly what you have original jurisdiction of. and that is boundary line disputes. District boundary lines are the only times that this Board has an original jurisdiction. Other than that, everything comes to you by way of Appellate Review, and it's been some time since I researched this, but I believe this was also backed up originally in the Town Law, as it originally existed. I can't tell you I've read through all the new Sections with this question in mind, because I haven't, but under the old Sections. that's the way I researched it out, and I don't believe that's changed. but I just felt that's important to mention to you, in terms of your jurisdiction. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think the Board concurs with you, because last meeting with Parillo we thought the Zoning Administrator had the right to make the decision, subject to appeal by the ZBA. Is that different, do you think, in that it still was? MR. DUSEK-Well, that case was a little different, but this one I felt that I should just make that statement anyway, so that you have that information. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. PHILO-Very good, Paul. Could you explain one thing on the interpretation. When they purchase a parcel of property. and they 10 say it's g 19 to be for a fun park. how much can th~ do as long as they're~nside that property? When do they call-it an over expansion. or overuse? MR. DUSEK-Well. I think that goes to the very heart of the issue that the Board is dealing with. that it's accessory versus expansion. and as I mentioned. I think that's a factual issue. and I think the things that you have to look at is the relationship of the use to the park. You have to look at the circumstances underlying the use. You have to look at what demands are placed or what needs are generated as a result of the use. I think these are all factors you have to consider in terms of determining whether it's a mere accessory or whether it's an expansion. and that's going to be your factual call, I think you're going to have to wrestle around with as a group a little bit. I should just clarify my previous statements by saying this. that certainly you have a right to make an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. It's part of your decision making process. What my point was. the Zoning Administrator just can't throw up his hands and say. I'm not deciding. Go to the ZBA. The Zoning Administrator makes a decision and gets appealed. but you can certainly interpret the Ordinance as you make the decision. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. Paul. MOTION TO UPHOLD APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAMES MEHALICK VICTOR THOMAS IN THE MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: As a Board we agree that the Zoning Administrator had the authority to make the decision subject to review by the ZBA. In this case. IBC Corporation built not only sWimming pools. but water slides. animal structures. sprays. wading pools. along with the converting of buildings to different uses as an addition to a recreational park. A section of the park has been considerably enlarged and substantially altered with a new attraction so the project cannot be considered as minor. Therefore. it does not meet both the customary and incidental requirements necessary to qualify it an accessory use. It therefore should have gone for site plan review by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 16th day of December. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Philo ABSTAINED: Mr. Sicard ABSENT: Mr. Turner (8:25 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 110-1992 TYPE I SEQRA DONE BY PB 11/10/92 SPR NEEDED WR-1A RICHARD BROOME OWNER: HERBERT ROBERT TYRER BIRDSALL ROAD. GLEN LAKE FRONTAGE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. THE CURRENT SQ. FT. OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS 1.018 SQ. FT. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION RESULTS IN A TOTAL OF 2,204 SQ. FT., RESULTING IN AN INCREASE OF 1,006 SQ. FT. (99 PERCENT INCREASE). THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF 677 SQ. FT. (44 PERCENT) ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EXPANSION OF 50 PERCENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 40-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.12 ACRES SECTION 179- 79 A(2) RICHARD BROOME. PRESENT (8:25 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board. No Return. "No action taken. Majority vote could not be achieved." 11 STAFF INPU"'- Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 110-1992, Richard Broome, Meeting Date: December 16, 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Proposed project consists of: 1. Removal of a rear shed attached to existing single family structure. 2. Excavation of an approximately 18 ft. by 14 ft. by 45 ft. swath of the bank behind the existing house. 3. Construction of a 10 ft. by 14 ft. by 29 ft. retaining wall in the excavation site, which will act as the rear wall of a proposed 29 ft. by 8 ft. cellar-storage area to be constructed on the site of the removed shed. The retaining wall will also act as the foundation for the proposed second story of the residence. The new construction will extend the existing structure 8 ft. to the rear. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79(A)(2) which states that the enlargement or rebuilding of a nonconforming single family home may not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of existing structure. Existing structure is one thousand eighteen (1.018) sq. ft. Proposed structure will be two thousand two hundred four (2.204) sq. ft.. resulting in an increase of 1,006 sq. ft. and a ninety-nine (99) percent increase over existing structure. Applicant is seeking relief of six hundred seventy- seven (677) sq. ft.. forty-four (44) percent above the maximum allowable expansion of fifty (50) percent. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Practical difficulty rests with the need to expand existing structure more than fifty (50) percent in order to provide sufficient space for a year-round residence. 2. The minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficul ty and there is no other practical means for enlarging structure to meet the family's needs. 3. The variance will not be detrimental to other properties in the district as project is consistent with other homes in the area. 4. The project will have no effects on public facilities or services and the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: 1. After a site visit. staff was concerned that the engineering and construction of the retaining wall be adequate for bank retention and support of the second story, and that the excavation of the bank be conducted in such a manner that there be no net loss of eXisting plants or trees in the remaining bank. The staff is recommending that an engineer be consulted by the applicant on this issue. 2. Placement of the septic is nonconforming and twenty- fi ve (25) years old. Afte r consul ting with staff in the Building Department regarding the septic issues. it was determined that if the present septic failed. there would be no other conforming site on the property for a new septic. and the only alternative would be a pumping station and a holding tank which would require periodic removal of waste material." MR. CARVIN-Have you consulted an engineer? MR. BROOME-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Did you have any engineering reports or anything like that? I mean, is it feasible? MR. BROOME-I have a diagram. It is feasible. We employed Richard Jones to do some diagrams. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Those diagrams should be in your packet. There are diagrams of the foundation wall. MR. CARVIN-I don't seem to have any, outside of a hand sketch. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. those aren't. MR. BROOME-They have Richard Jones name on the top. MR. TURNER-Yes. They should be. 12 MR. PHILO-' \t type of system is he putting in there? MR. BROOME-It's a poured concrete with reinforced bars with a large base on the bottom. MR. PHILO-May I see that? MR. MARTIN-I think if you retained your original packet from whenever, it should be in there. MR. CARVIN-Which I did, and I still don't have it. MR. MARTIN-It's not. MR. PHILO-That's why we asked him, on the original packet, to give us this. MR. CARVIN-We've MR. TURNER-I've MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-No. got just about everything else but that, I guess. got my original and there's nothing in there. I don't have anything there. I don't have anything in mine, either. MR. BROOME-I think it would have been in your original. you would have gotten it for the Zoning Board. I think MR. TURNER-For the Planning Board, for SEQRA? MR. BROOME-After being sent to the Planning Board. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. It was put in the file, and it should have been copied for each of the Board members. MR. TURNER-All right. There was an issue raised tonight, and I guess we forgot about it, but this piece of property might not be on a Town road. So, he might need a variance from that. MR. PHILO-Who drew this print up? MR. BROOME-Dick Jones. MR. TURNER-Dick Jones. That's a humongous expansion. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, is there anything in that one of the ?? MR. TURNER-No. There isn't in mine, and that's the same thing I got. MRS. EGGLESTON-On that it doesn't show the section? MR. TURNER-No. That's it right there, that map. MR. PHILO-That's more than 14 foot on the wall, elevation from the sea level, finished elevation, to the top of that blacktop. What's he going to do, slope that property down? MR. BROOME-Yes. MR. PHILO-He's only got one footing drain in here, no weep holes, no nothing. What's going to retain the pressure from that bank, just this wall? MR. BROOME-I'm not an engineer. I asked Mr. Jones to do that. I requested support. MR. TURNER-Tom, I think the only issue that's before us is the variance request. Somebody else should address this issue. 13 MR. PHILO-' ~nk you, Ted. "~ MRS. EGGLESTON-If the Planning Board had any concerns, should we have gotten a letter? I mean, should they have written us? That's why it went there first for SEQRA. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I didn't see anything from them. MR. TURNER-Is the resolution in there? MRS. EGGLESTON-There's where we made them Lead Agency. MR. MARTIN-They passed on the SEQRA Review. MR. TURNER-Negative Dec? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Well, the first thing we've got to do is accept that, before we do anything. That's the Full Environmental Assessment, but there should be a resolution in there from the Planning Board. Just read that resolution when determination of no significance is made. That's just a resolution. Read this right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-From the Planning Board, "A RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION FOR SEQRA REVIEW ONLY WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: with regard to an Area Variance for RICHARD BROOME. for the evaluation of the environmental review and a determination of significance on the request which consists of the following: 1. Proposed project consists of the removal of a rear shed attached to an existing single family structure. 2. The excavation of the bank behind the existing house and the construction of a retaining wall in the excavated site which will also act as the foundation of a proposed second story to the building. 3. Construction of a 29 ft. by 35 ft. second story expansion to the existing building., and.... .Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law." MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD DATED NOVEMBER THE 10TH. 1992 IN REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 110-1992 RICHARD BROOME, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Birdsall Road, Glen Lake. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. That's taken care of. Now we can get on to the application. Does anyone else have any questions? No other alternative that would meet your needs, for that house? 14 MR. BROOME ~'s simply too small. It's a nice spot, ¿ we'd like to live the:re. I'd prefer to move back into the bank ¡fea, rather than come out in front of the building, but we're close to the lake at that point. MR. PHILO-You're right on the lake, now. MR. BROOME-Yes. There's only 15 existing structures above me. MR. PHILO-They're asking for a 75 foot setback, and these guys are right on the water now. MR. TURNER-What are you going to finish up with your elevation, peak of the roof? I don't see that here. MR. BROOME-There's some diagrams. MR. TURNER-There's some on here, but it just identifies the present and proposed. You're not going over 35 feet. MR. BROOME-Are you interested in the pitch of the roof, or the overall height? MR. TURNER-No. You're not going to exceed a height of 35 feet, are you? Okay. MR. PHILO-What's that neighbor right next to you? Are you going to be right up over the top of him, right? MR. BROOME-It will be about the same height, with a flat roof. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you looked at any other spots around the lake? I mean, really, the size of this lot just prohibits doing much with it. Sometimes some lots just cannot be expanded. You must admit a .12 size lot and every bit of it was filled in, as you look at it. You're out over the water. You're into the bank. I mean, really, there's just no place to, and to expand it more would just be a. MR. BROOME-It is a small lot. I would prefer to have quite a bit more. There aren't many places on the lake for sale, particularly that lot. There is quite a bit of open land to the northwest which makes it appear not quite as congested. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does the sale still hinge? I mean, you haven't consummated your deal? It still hinges on? MR. BROOME-It the variance, of what we professionally see. still hinges on the Zoning Board approval and getting and selling my own house. I have some other diagrams percei ve, more professional I y done, not more done, but professionally looking, if you'd like to MR. TURNER-Anything, Charlie? You live up there. Any comments? MR. SICARD-Land gets pretty scarce in that area, and he's spending a lot of money. It's what he wants. Are you aware, if that septic fails, what you'll have to do, the holding tank? MR. BROOME-Yes. That's the scariest part of it for us. MR. SICARD-That's a tough one. MR. BROOME-There are some other suitably, rather than just the seasonal dwelling, the storage expensive. technologies that could be used storage, that's only used in a and the pumping. It gets very MR. SICARD-It certainly can be done. 15 ~~.--------- MR. BROOME s . --- MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, where would you even put a holding tank? You'd have to put it up on the road where you park the cars. MR. BROOME-Either that, or on the terrace directly behind the structure. You need the terrace somewhere, and my plan is to slope the bank and put in some additional shrubbery. MR. CARVIN-How much of that bank are you going to remove? I guess I'm confused. I see anywhere from two to four feet. MR. BROOME-As I look at it, from where it is now, you're looking at about four feet. Now they've got to take off more than that in order to construct this wall. It's my understanding, in order to get in on both sides of it, pour the forms in, and so on, but as I look at what's there, and part of that back shed that extends back, in terms of the part of the shed that extends the furthest back, I'm only going maybe a foot and a half or two feet beyond that. Part of it is already held there with a stone wall. MR. CARVIN-As I remember, that's a pretty steep walk coming down the hill, and are you going to terrace that, or is that walk going to remain pretty much the same? MR. BROOME-No. I wouldn't be using that walk. I don't see any potential in that. There would be a terrace there. There's a small area of terrace there, but it would be a larger area of terracing, and I would come down with a set of steps. MR. PHILO-Over that wall? MR. BROOME-No, no, through that wall. We're planning to enter the house, the main entrance of the house would be at that terrace level, at the second floor. MR. CARVIN-At the second floor. MR. BROOME-Yes. We would put some decking along the side of the house, and then go directly up to the top of the hill. It would amount to a flight of stairs that would be in the area of 12, 15 feet, something in there. I want to stay off that bank. It's just too fragile. MR. CARVIN-I guess that's, I wished I had more of, I'm not on the Planning Board, and I'm glad I'm not. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does this help any? Have you got that one? I'm trying to look at the, it's just a lot, for that size of a. MR. PHILO-That's better than 60 percent. MR. CARVIN-I looked at that, and I thought to myself, boy, I wouldn't want to be the guy that's building that, I can tell you that, because that's going to be a real pain, getting all that dirt out, and I don't see how they're going to, you're going to have to move a lot of that stuff, because there's a lot of trees there. MR. BROOME-There would be some trees that are, almost a row, smallish trees. They're a few inches in diameter, they're about three to four inches in diameter. It would have to be done from the water level itself, from the base level, by bringing in some equipment. Again, it would have to be small earth moving equipment. I wouldn't do it by hand, and that could be brought in from the, it could be brought in over the lake, too, I suppose. MR. CARVIN-You don't know what kind of foundation that's on? Is that all rock underneath the house? MR. BROOME-My understanding is that it's part of the railroad bed. 16 He did some )undation work there. I talked to the co £actor who did the work--for him. and at the root of the old railròãd bed that was in there is quite a large rock foundation underneath that. crushed stone. and that kind of thing I suppose they put in there. MR. CARVIN-Do you think it would take. and again. these are planning questions more than they are zoning. but as I said. my concern. basically. is that you're going to be putting a big addition on a very fragile area. I just would hate to see you sink beneath the waves out there. MR. BROOME-Again. it was a concern for me. and that's why I brought up the question with his contractor and interviewed the contractor that did the winterizing. the things that were necessary. MR. PHILO-How close are you to the next camp there. or house? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. one is right. MR. TURNER-Right next to it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. because there's a very narrow deck down through there. as I remember it. MR. BROOME-Probably 20 feet. It's real close. MR. CARVIN-How about the other side? other side. I didn't get over to the MR. BROOME-The other side has got to there and the next house that's in. property belongs to Mr. Whelan who property along the hill. be 3. 4. 500 feet between My understanding is that owns a good share of the MR. TURNER-Do you have any other drawings there you want to offer us? MR. BROOME-Yes. I have the architectural drawings. I had them do a front elevation and a side elevation. It was a project for the class. I had them leave the side elevation kind of open. so that you get a sense of what we were trying to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is the front facing the water? MR. BROOME-Yes. MR. PHILO-You're saying that second floor elevation will be about level with the first elevation of the parking lot? MR. BROOME-The peak will be closer to level with the parking lot. The peak will maybe be four or five feet above the level of the parking area. I'm putting a steep peak on the structure. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions. after looking at it? MR. SICARD-I think it's well designed. That's just my opinion. MR. TURNER-It's well designed. right. but the problem is. it's a humongous expansion on that little small lot. MR. SICARD-It is a lot of expansion. but to do what he wants to do. he needs every bit of that expansion. in this particular case. MR. THOMAS-Most of the expansion is going. really. up. MR. TURNER-Up. MR. THOMAS-It's not going side to side. 17 MR. TURNER-' '. He's got to go up. He doesn't have é to go. other way MR. THOMAS-He doesn't have any room to go. It's really just over- building the existing camp. putting a second floor on the existing. plus going into the bank a little bit. MR. CARVIN-How close to that. is that fireplace going to be to the property line? Is that going to be just about on it? MR. BROOME-No. The fireplace is on the side with the larger property line. There is a fireplace. It's extending the fireplace that's in the bUilding. It's already there. MR. CARVIN-I see. So. you're just extending the chimney up? MR. BROOME-The chimney up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BROOME-It's on the wider side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Was this checked for permeability? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. it was. MR. TURNER-Did it make the 65 percent? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I'm not sure. I don't have the application. MR. PHILO-I agree with you. Ted. That's an awful lot of expansion for that piece of property. and I'm worried about the septic tank. and we're trying to look at. like. Glen Lake and keep things beautiful and like the Towers Hotel right at. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? hearing. Okay. I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SICARD-I think it's well done. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? To me. it's too much of an expansion. I don't care if you go UP. it's still too much. MR. CARVIN-How many folks are going to be living in the house? MR. BROOME-Well. assuming we build it in the spring. there would be three of us. I still have one daughter left at home. and she'll be off to college very soon. Basically. it'll probably be two years with her. She may come back and visit. MR. CARVIN-I just have a concern. as everybody else has expressed. that it's an awful lot of house. I hate to say no. but I just think it's an awful lot of house on a very little lot. MR. THOMAS-Yes. but it's going up. It's just going up. It's not really going out. MR. PHILO-That's all right. You've got a problem down the future. and you've got more footage there. more septic. if he sells that property. in the future. There's two in the house now. or three. MR. SICARD-If this same amount of expansion went out on all four sides. you'd have a big house. In this particular case. it's going right up over. almost the existing. except this back lower corner 18 here. MR. PHILO-If I was a neighbor, I wouldn't like it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Charlie, what do you think Mrs. Dickinson would think? MR. SICARD-I don't know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you remember? MR. SICARD-Yes, but you look at the amount of expansion. heavy. It's MR. TURNER-It's maxed out, Charlie. There's no alternative to what they really want. There's a library and sewing room upstairs. It's a real small lot. MR. PHILO-I disagree with Charlie on that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-Expansion is expansion. I believe it's too much. MR. THOMAS-They're not really expanding to the side towards the property line. They're just going to the back. MR. PHILO-They couldn't. They'd be off the property line. MR. THOMAS-So, they're just going up. It's not like they're going out. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. They're going back into the bank. going to remove part of the bank. They're MR. THOMAS-But they're only going back in four feet, and they're going up. MR. TURNER-Yes, and we've had others with the same situation and we've turned them down because it's just too much for the house that's on the lot. MR. PHILO-That's the way ~ feel. I'm trying to be fair with the rest of the neighbors there, too. MR. BROOME-The neighbors have a similar house. MR. SICARD-The neighbors haven't been here. If there was any great objection to it, they would have been here. MR. TURNER-I don't think you can hold it just to the neighbors. You've got to hold it to what you've already done. MR. SICARD-I understand that, but it's an unusual situation, being on that hill the way it is. MR. THOMAS-And we haven't heard from the Glen Lake Association, where they object to it or anything like that. MR. TURNER-Well, they don't respond to many of these anyway. I don't think they've ever come to one of them. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. They just go to the, Mr. Wood, when he wants to build something. That's the only time they come here. Then they're here in full force. MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no further comment, motion's in order. MR. PHILO-I'd be scared of it, myself. 19 MR. TURNER-~ ~ thing I'm saying. if you're going to bu ~ piece of -../ property up ,,-,.lere. you know what your limitations are wlien you walk forward and you buy it. and I think. and it's a good thing he hasn't bought it. but he's doing it the right way. MR. PHILO-When they plow that. where are they going to put all the snow from that area? MR. TURNER-Well. that might be another issue. Tom. This might not be on a public road. This might need a variance for that. too. MR. BROOME-That road is presently being plowed by one of the local people there. MR. TURNER-Yes. The guy right down the. I can't think of his name. but he lives right down there. MR. PHILO-It's not even a Town road? MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-Well. it's not been determined yet. MR. TURNER-Well. it never has been. because I remember the other applications that have come before us. MR. MARTIN-Well. there's a number of conflicting aspects to that. The Town accepted the road in 1963 by resolution of the Town Board. MR. TURNER-How much of it? How far did it go? MR. MARTIN-In the 11 years that Paul Naylor has been Highway Superintendent. and we don't know. maybe even prior to that. the Town's never plowed or maintained this section of Birdsall Road. However. more than one or two people use this road. even on a seasonal basis. It's used by potentially 30. 40 homes up in that area. So. therefore. any road by public use is a public road. and therefore should be maintained. The other issue is that the Town has. even in its most recent application for the highway money through the CHIPS program has been using this road in their calculation of linear road throughout the Town. That's the method of the aid you get. depending on how much length of road you have. and this has been used in that calculation. So. the only thing not in favor of it being a public road is the Town's never maintained this section of it. Every other indicator is that it is a public road. and Paul Naylor and Paul Dusek are trying to hash this out right now. So. if you were to approve this and allow the variances. I would recommend that you approve on that condition. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-If you deny, obviously. it's a moot point. but if you were to approve. I'd condition it until we get further word from the Highway Superintendent. MR. TURNER-Right. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE RO. 110-1992 RICHARD BROOME. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Marie Paling: The applicant is seeking maximum relief on a very small piece of land. .12 acres of land. The spirit of the Ordinance was designed to protect the Critically Environmental Areas of the Town. and this being one of them. it would be in direct opposition to the spirit of the Ordinance. were we to allow this application. The facts are the lot is just too small for this size of an expansion. There are other alternatives that the applicant could explore. There is also the question of whether the lot would wi thstand septic systems within future years. 20 Duly adopte-' this 16th day of December, 1992, by th_ following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard MR. BROOME-Any chance of getting a list of those alternatives you spoke of, some outline of the alternatives you spoke of? MR. TURNER-I think one of the al ternati ves is design a smaller house, for one thing, for the size of the lot, cut down on your bedroom space. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe redo and be happy with what's there. I know it's not much, sir, but. MR. BROOME-That's not an alternative. MRS. EGGLESTON-That is an alternative, I guess. MR. BROOME-Is it my understanding that if the addition is below 50 percent, less than 50 percent, I don't need a variance? Is that correct, in this case, or do I still need a variance? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-You wouldn't need the variance from that. It would be 50 percent of the original footprint. MR. PHILO-You'd still have to have a variance for the property line, the setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-If he goes back into the bank. Would he? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Well, he wouldn't be expanding into the bank. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I would assume you're not expanding into the bank, if it's, well, I don't know. MR. BROOME-Don't know. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. MR. BROOME-How much setback do I need in the back? MR. TURNER-How much in the back? 20 feet. MR. BROOME-A setback of 20 feet from the property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-He has that. The question you were asking about is just building into the bank. Even if it was up to the 50 percent, the allowable expansion, would you still be going into the bank, because there was a question of the. MR. PHILO-It's right on the water. There's no setback on the water at all. He's supposed to be 75 feet. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Well, he's not expanding into the water. MR. PHILO-I understand that. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It was just going up. MR. MARTIN-If you were under the 50 percent, you'd still need site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming structure, but I don't know that you'd trip a variance. 21 MRS. RUTHSC'~LD-I don't think a variance would be a p~lem if it was up to 5 percent. MR. BROOME-Okay. Thank you. ( 9: 08 p. m. ) AREA VARIANCE NO. 125-1992 TYPE I PB 12/8/92 SEQRA ZBA 12/16/92 VARIANCE REVIEW PB 12/22/92 SPR 53-92 WR-1A HALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT OWNER: HALVERN AND CAROLYN TIPPETT BEAN ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXPANSION OF A PREEXISTING, NONCONFORHING STRUCTURE BY DEHOLISHING THE EXISTING REAR AND EAST PORTION OF THE SINGLE FAHILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION TO THE REAR AND EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 4 FT. PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS FOR 3 FT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING FURTHER RELIEF OF 1 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 152-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-79 A(1), 179-16C DEAN HOWLAND. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:08 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-Warren County. HR. HARTIN-I believe it was denied at the County. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it was. I'm just trying to find the reading. and we don't have a County. we don't get those things anymore. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-You will. HRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. It was denied. then. by the Warren County Planning Board. So. Ted. does that mean our vote would have to be a majority plus one? MR. TURNER-Majority plus one. Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 125-1992. Halvern & Carolyn Tippett. Meeting Date: December 16. 1992 "SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT: The proposed project consists of: 1. Removal of the rear portion of an existing building including concrete pad at rear of building (east view). 2. Construction of a sixteen foot by twenty- four foot (16 ft. by 24 ft.) expansion at the rear of the building (east view). 3. Construction of a ten foot by twenty-four foot (10 ft. by 24 ft.) unenclosed porch and a second story dormer over porch on the south side of the existing residence. 4. Existing residence is preexisting and nonconforming with the area. lot width. front and left side yard setback regulations. CONFORMANCE WITH AREA/USE REGULATIONS: 1. Existing north side yard setback is four feet and six inches (4 ft. 6 in.). proposed north side yard setback is three foot and six inches (3 ft. 6 in.). Applicant is seeking further relief of one foot (1 ft.) on the north side yard setback. 2. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79A(1). which states that a single family dwelling which is nonconforming. may not be enlarged or extended except if all setback provisions of the chapter are met. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not permit the placement of a structure which meets the zoninq requirements. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the proposed expansion of this preexisting nonconforming structure results in the further intrusion of the north side yard setback. reducing it to three foot and six inches (3 ft. 6 in.). 2. Is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any option which would require no variance? It would appear that the minimum variance necessary as there is no other practical place to expand the existing building without requiring a variance. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to other properties in the district or neiqhborhood or conflict with the obiectives of any plan or policy of the Town? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 22 4. What ar the effects of the variance on public fa~ities and services? ~~ would appear that the proposed project will have no adverse effects on public facilities or services. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessarv to alleviate the specified practical difficul tv? It appears that the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The maj or concern regarding the further reduction of the north side yard setback is that although the property adjacent to the proposed project's north side boundary is currently vacant, the proximity of the existing bUilding and the proposed expansion might be a visual intrusion to the adjacent property if it were to be developed in the future. Although it appears that there is a small vegetative buffer on the adjacent property, opposite the proposed project, similar or appropriate plantings might be considered for the north side yard of the proposed project to mitigate any possible visual intrusion of said project." MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. I'm Dean Howland from Howland Construction. I'm with Mal Tippett, the owner. I would like to clarify one point on that last, the setback will actually remain the same. The four foot six inches is to the existing concrete. MR. TURNER-How about the overhang? MR. HOWLAND-The roof overhang? MR. TURNER-He's not going to violate that? That counts. MR. HOWLAND-Well, that would count on the existing building. MR. TURNER-So, it would be 3 ft. 6 in., instead of 4 ft. 6 in. MR. HOWLAND-Okay, but that's already preexisting. We aren't getting any closer. Actually, as you go towards the rear of the property, you start to get farther away. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-So, we're going to be maintaining the same that's there. The existing still has a one foot overhang. MR. TURNER-The setbacks are taken from the farthest point on the structure. The overhang counts for the setback. MR. HOWLAND-That's where it is right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. So, it'll be 3 ft. Ordinance. Is it 3 ft. 6 in. or 4 ft. 6 6 in, . ? J.n. . according to the MR. HOWLAND-4 ft. 6 in. MR. TURNER-Okay, because it's on here 4 ft. 6 in. MR. HOWLAND-Basically, we spent, when the owners bought this piece of property a couple of years ago, they do own the property to the rear. There's actually three parcels that are connected that they own, which you have there on that large map there. As you notice, to the right hand side, it's 12.1, 12.2, 16.21, it's the dark wide line all the way around. That is the existing property. The house sits on one parcel. As I said, they bought the property a couple of years ago and talked to me at that time about doing some remodeling. I always recommend to people when they buy an existing place or move into it, to see how the property lives, or what happens. Their particular view in this whole piece of property is east, is out that back end. The existing house right now, as you walk in, you walk in, part of the parking lot's on the neighbor's lot, but you walk into the small living room cut by a bedroom. We're trying to take the focal point, which is the rear of the house, and improve the outside appearance of the existing 23 structure. ~he new appearance of the building, we'll~e putting new roofing-Jn it, new siding, and trying to make it look like. MR. TURNER-Are you going to change the profile of the roof? MR. HOWLAND-No. We won't. We have some, I'll hang down some prints. There'd be one profile on the north I would change, by adding on to the rear there, following the existing roof line, we'd be covering up the master bedroom. So we punched out a little dormer here where the existing laundry is right now, that sticks out a little there. MR. PHILO-How is that snow, is it going to go over on the north side, or south side? MR. HOWLAND-It's the same as the existing. The snow, when it comes off the 2412 pitch, it still goes to the north side. It does now, and will in the future. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? public hearing, then. Okay. I'll open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-I did have a call from the Krebs. I spoke with them personally when I was up there, when we were doing our site inspections, and they were in favor of the project. MR. TURNER-This is a modest expansion of 408 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was looking at, though, what the side yard setback was. MR. TURNER-The sum of 50, or I mean, max 50. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why does the Staff say they only need one foot of relief? MR. TURNER-It's Waterfront Residential. Right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-They've got to have a sum of 50 and a minimum of 20. They need one foot relief from the 20 feet. What's the other side? What's the side over here? MRS. EGGLESTON-This is what we're concerned about, right? MR. TURNER-Right, but if they've got 50 here. Do you have a ruler? MRS. EGGLESTON-They've got to have 20 foot minimum on one side. MR. TURNER-Yes. They need a sum of 50 with a minimum of 20. So, they've got. MR. THOMAS-See, they've got 40 here. MR. PHILO-Dean, what is that small attachment to the house there? MR. HOWLAND-I believe it's where they keep the garbage cans. It's been there since they bought it. MR. PHILO-It's just about on the property line. 24 MR. HOWLAND -~es. it is. MALVERN TIPPETT MR. TIPPETT-Mal Tippett. The property. I believe. was all one parcel at one time. and he sold it to the Morrisons. supposedly with the understanding that the Morrisons would give them back a certain portion of that. that the parcel would be. a small section. like 20 or 30 foot. would be given back to. at that time. the Piersons. He died in the interim. and it was never carried out. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? All right. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 125-1992 MALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Where we grant a 15.4 foot side yard setback relief on the north side to allow a proposed expansion. The practical difficulty rests in the fact that this is a preexisting nonconforming structure and that this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate this practical difficulty. It would appear that the variance would not be detrimentally effected and would not effect other properties in the District or neighborhood. There does not appear to be any adverse effect on public facilities or services. and this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 16th day of December. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:28 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 126-1992 SPR 55-92 PB 12/22/92 LI-1A HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERRITT AND CORINTH ROAD INTERSECTION THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN EXPANSION TO A GARAGE WHICH REPRESENT A PREEXISTING. NONCONFORMING USE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FOR ALLOWANCE OF THIS EXPANDED NONCONFORMING USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 22.500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-79 D HEIDI MEYERS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:28 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-Warren County approved with the comment. "Concur with local conditions." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Use Variance No. 126-1992 Hugh & Karen Sinclair. Meeting Date: December 16. 1992 "SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT: Applicant's project is currently existing and consists of the expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use structure (garage). with the construction of a thirteen foot and two inch by twenty-two foot and six inch (13 ft. 2 in. by 22 ft. 6 in.) unenclosed lean-to storage structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE 1 AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Proposed project is subject to Section 179-790 which states that any nonconforming use structure may be enlarged only by a variance issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-26D(2)(a). which lists customary accessory uses to a permitted use (neither the principal building or the garage is a permitted use). REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? Reasonable return of the land is limited as far as the applicant's business is concerned because the business is not a permitted use in the LI-1A zone. Therefore. expansion of the existing garage. which is a 25 nonconformi~~. but customary accessory use to a permii~~d use. is not alloweQ_~i ther. 2. Are the circumstances of the lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The circumstances of the lot are unique to the degree that the area is zoned for Light Industrial. but the actual use is a mix of industrial and residential. The principal building of the business was a single family home and applicant has not altered the original structure because they wanted to maintain the "look" of a single family home in order to be consistent with the character of the residences in the neighborhood. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the character of the neiqhborhood? As this project already exists and applicant asserts that there have been no complaints from neighbors regarding the expansion. it would appear that the project does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Here's a diagram. MR. PHILO-How long did you have that up before they asked for a variance? MS. MEYERS-About two days. MR. TURNER-They don't miss much. do they? MS. MEYERS-No. MR. PHILO-Did you have a building permit or anything at that time? MS. MEYERS-We didn't know. at that time. We filed for a building permit when we found out that we needed the variance. MR. PHILO-What is your name. young lady? MS. MEYERS-My name is Heidi Meyers. Sinclair. I work for Mr. Sinclair. I represent Mr. and Mrs. MR. TURNER-Just for the Board's information. they did get a variance to operate the business there. MS. MEYERS-Yes. MR. TURNER-We gave them the permission to operate the business there. out of that house. So. this is just an add on to. is this always going to remain a lean-to. or are you going to close it in. or what? MS. MEYERS-No. It's just going to remain a lean-to. We have a lot of scaffolding and ladders and things like that that we can't gain access. by pulling the truck. backing the truck up to it. loading them in and out of the truck at any other point on our property. So. that's why we. MR. TURNER-Is this your last expansion. for the time being? MS. MEYERS-It should be. We don't foresee anything else. MR. THOMAS-Do you drive under that structure? MS. MEYERS-Not normally we don't drive under it. I think that they parked under it the other day. They were doing something under the hood of the car. MR. THOMAS-Because I see it's built right over the top of the septic tank. MS. MEYERS-Yes. That's why you have your revised picture. because Arlyne notified me yesterday. I hadn't even thought of that. and so I called the man who installed our brand new septic system. 26 ~ about two y~rs ago. and he told me. yes. you're sitt~ right on top of it. MR. THOMAS-Is there any danger of collapsing into it? MS. MEYERS-He said no. He didn't find any problems. more concerned about where the leachfield was. They were MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. I questioned. in the Area Variance I've got that. but I did question the Building Department about the possible problem with the septic tank. and they said that as long as it was just the tank that it was over. and not the leachfields. that it wouldn't in any way effect the septic. and it's mostly storage. and light vehicle use of on and off loading. MR. TURNER-Okay. Have you guys got any further questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-How much storage stuff do you need? business? Is it Service Master? What's the MS. MEYERS-We're a professional cleaning company. and most of our chemicals and things like that that have to be stored where they won't freeze or they're not exposed to either heat or cold. one or the other. So they have to be kept inside. So. all of our storage in the interior of the building is mostly cleaning components. cleaning supplies. cleaning chemicals. things like that. the equipment that cannot freeze. If the lines freeze. it's very costly for those kinds of items. They have to be kept inside. So. the items that it doesn't matter whether they're exposed to the elements. such as scaffolding or ladders. or stuff. sometimes we have to have lumber. we use it on water loss. we have to cut up lumber to elevate furniture off of rugs. things like that. Those things we don't care if they're exposed to the elements or if they're outside or if it gets cold. it doesn't matter. So we needed more storage for those items. We only have the one garage. We have three vehicles and one has to be housed where it's needed. So that takes up the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What about the other storage building. and is the house occupied? MS. MEYERS-The other side of this storage? MR. CARVIN-Well. you've got what looks like a breezeway to a storage area. MS. MEYERS-Right. That's basically where a lot of those things are stored. that we have what are called hand held comportable units. Those cannot freeze. Those have to be brought in and stored in that area every evening. We are not allowed. according to the Planning Board. we're not allowed. they don't want us coming in and out of the Corinth Road. so that kind of enables us being able to back up to that storage area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and is the house being occupied at this point? MS. MEYERS-Just our office. MR. CARVIN-Is there a cellar in it? MS. MEYERS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And that's all filled. too? 27 MS. MEYERS-' s. - MR. CARVIN-You have a lot of material. MS. MEYERS-Yes, you do. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many rooms are there in the house? MS. MEYERS-There are five rooms. There's a kitchen and a little bathroom and three small offices. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other comments? None? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 126-1992 HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: For the expansion of an existing garage. This expansion is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. There has been no objections to this expansion, and this request seems to be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. There are no effects of this variance on public utilities or any services. Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin (9:42 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 118-1992 TYPE II SPR 55-92 PB 12/22/92 LI-1A HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CORINTH AND MERRITT ROADS THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN EXPANSION TO A GARAGE WHICH REPRESENTS A PREEXISTING. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 40 FT. THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS 50 FT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF 10 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 150 FT. BY 150 FT, SECTION 179-26C, 179-79D HEIDI MEYERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:42 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 118-1992, Hugh and Karen Sinclair, Meeting Date: December 16, 1992 "SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT: Applicant's project is currently existing and consists of the expansion of a garage with the construction of a thirteen foot and two inch by twenty-two foot and six inch (13 ft. 2 in. by 22 ft. 6 in.) unenclosed lean-to storage structure. The parcel and structure is preexisting and nonconforming in its area, lot width and depth, use and front yard setback. Existing lean-to expansion is nonconforming in its use and front yard setback. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking ten feet (10 ft.) relief from Section 179-26C which requires fifty feet (50 ft.) for the front yard setback, existing setback is forty feet (40 ft. ) REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which does not meetinq zoninq requirements. The only practical place to expand existing garage results in the noncompliance with the front yard setback. 2. Is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? It appears that this is the minimum variance necessary as there is no other option available which would require no variance. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the 28 obiectives c any plan or policy of the Town? As t-"s project already ex. c.s. and applicant asserts that there have been no complaints regarding the expansion. and expansion appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and zone. it would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the district or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? It appears that the variance would have no effect on public facilities and services. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? As there is no other practical way to expand the garage and comply with the front yard setbaçk. it would appear that the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff requested advice from the Building Department regarding possible effects of the placement of the expansion of the garage partially over the existing septic system. (see attached diagram of septic system). Staff was advised that as long as it was the septic tank and not the leach fields affected by the expansion. use of the area for equipment storage and light vehicular use would not adversely affect the existing septic system." MR. TURNER-There's no question from anybody. is there? This is kind of straight forward. MR. CARVIN-Just one question. Could you put a car with that lean- to? Could it be used as storage for an automobile or a vehicle? MS. MEYERS-It could. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open and close the public hearing. Nobody responded the last time. There's no one here this time around. is there? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll make a motion. 'MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 118-1992 HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: To grant 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot required front yard setback. The practical difficulty is demonstrated by the fact that if they had to move the structure. they would inhibit their approach to the leachfield. The garage shows 22 feet. and it is 24 feet from the septic tank to the distribution box. Also. it might effect their parking and snow removal. This is the minimum variance to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 16th day of December. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin (9:51 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 128-1992 TYPE II WR-1A C.E.A. DR. & MRS. ROBERT BIRCHENOUGH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MAIN ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXPANSION 01' A NONCON:rORMING STRUCTURE THROUGH THE EXPANSION 01' THE LIVING AREA OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 30 FT. 2 IN. SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUEST IS :rOR 8 :rT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING A RELIEF OF 29 22 FT. 2 I~~ (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. _1-3-1 LOT SIZE: 11.~ ).16 SQ. FT. SECTION 119-16 C. 119-19 A(l) CURTIS DYBAS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:51 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved with the comment. "Concur with local conditions." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 128-1992. Dr. and Mrs. Robert Birchenough. Meeting Date: December 16. 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand a nonconforming structure by the construction of a six and five tenths feet by twenty-two and two tenths feet (6.5 ft. by 22.2 ft.) addition to the west side of the single family residence. An unenclosed deck on the east side of the residence will be enclosed. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Existing north side yard setback (at the "L" shaped. northwest corner of the residence) is thirty feet and two inches (30 ft. 2 in.). Proposed side yard setback is eight feet (8 ft. ). Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-two feet and two inches (22 ft. 2 in.) from the north side yard setback. 2. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79A that states that a nonconforming single family structure may not be enlarged or rebuilt except if all setback provisions of the chapter are met. 3. Applicant is proposing sixty-three and four tenths percent (63.4%) permeability and seeking one and six tenths percent relief from Section 179-79C. that requires sixty-five percent (65%) permeability. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Describe the practical difficulty that does not allow placement of a structure that meets zoninq requirements. Placement of existing residence disallows compliance with the side yard setback requirements of proposed expansion of the northwest corner of existing structure. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other oPtion available that would require no variance? It would appear that there is no other' practical option for expansion of the residence without requesting a variance. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neiqhborhood or conflict with the obiectives of any plan or policy of the Town? The proposed north side yard setback is consistent with the existing north side yard setback of the residence and it would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services. It would appear that the variance would not have an effect on public facilities and services. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul tv? The placement of the existing structure limits compliance with zoning requirements for the proposed expansion. It would appear the request for the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate this specific practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. DYBAS-My name is Curt Dybas. I'm from the architectural firm of Cushing/Dybas Associates representing Dr. and Mrs. Birchenough. MR. TURNER-How long have they owned the property? MR. DYBAS-May of 1991. I believe there's a copy of the deed. MR. TURNER-It might be in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Right here. Ted. April '91. MR. TURNER-What's the floor plan of the house. as it exists now? What's it consist of. the layout? MR. DYBAS-It presently consists of the kitchen. with a small eating area. and a sitting room. and a living room on the main floor. The 30 second floc consists of two bedrooms and a full bath.,~ MR. TURNER-The garage is a rental unit. upstairs? MR. DYBAS-The garage a rental unit over it. MR. TURNER-What facil'ties does that have in it? MR. DYBAS-I do not kn MR. PHILO-Tonight tha roof. on the greenhouse that's there. the area. What are you g ing to go right up and come right off the both? MR. DYBAS-I'm going to start with the crescent ridge of the living room. that abuts the existing fireplace chimney. and from that ridge point make a dou Ie gable. towards the east and the west. I believe there's eleva ions. in the back of the packet. MRS. EGGLESTON-How ma y residents are there. of the household? MR. DYBAS-I have met he Dr. and Mrs. Birchenough. and I have met one daughter. who has just graduated from college. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. as far as you know. three people reside in the residence? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is this fu 1 time. or is this just a summer residence? MR. DYBAS-Right now it is a summer residence. The long range plan is using it as a perm nent residence. is the doctor? How close to retirement. MR. CARVIN-And how would you guess? MR. DYBAS-I'd say. mi 50's. MR. PHILO-So. from porch area. you're going to go all the way back to the greenhouse So. you've got. construction's quite a bit there. It's not just that porch. MR. DYBAS-You're star right through to the b from the front of the existing deck. the entire north side of the structure. MR. THOMAS-Is that pro osed addition going over the top of that 300 gallon septic ejector metal tank? MR. DYBAS-That is goi be moved. obviously. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Wha 's this stone and gravel six inches to one feet beneath grass su face. covered with plastic? MR. DYBAS-That is an wner's sketch. and I have no idea. MR. TURNER-He's got an apartment in that garage. He ought show the lines coming from the partment to some what of those septic tanks. and I think we ought 0 know what's in there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. he do s. MR. TURNER-Where do y it? MR. SICARD-It's in th corner. MR. PHILO-The propert~'s loaded all the way down through here. MR. THOMAS-Right here this grease trap off the. 31 MR. TURNER-~ got that, yes, but that's all. MR. THOMAS-Yes, just t e grease trap, this 3,000 gallon tank that's sitting here. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MR. THOMAS-He's got s ptic tanks allover that place. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's under the driveway. No it isn't, either. MR. THOMAS-No. I I tie driveway. a basement in c awl space. There's a shed right here. MR. TURNER-It's off MR. SICARD-Is there this building? MR. DYBAS-There's a MR. SICARD-A crawl spa e. What is it heated with? Heat, electric? MR. DYBAS-Currently, . t' selectric heat. Part of the renovation process we are lookin~ at heating. MR. THOMAS-Do you knowl Chris, if these are all viable systems, or are they just drawn i there to show us where they are? MR. DYBAS-In talking t Dave Hatin, to the best of my knowledge, it is a permitted system. MR. PHILO-I think he 0 ght to give us some evidence of that system. MR. TURNER-I think we ought to have more information than we've got. MR. PHILO-I do, too. hat's quite a size building going in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-He's going 0 have 43.6 new construction. You're going right from the front to the back, taking that greenhouse out. You're going to have 0 rehab that roof, and it's going to come over that porch, right. So, it's 46 feet 3 inches total building. Six foot off the prop rty line in that spot. So, lets get some septic tank dimension and things on that. MR. DYBAS-I don't see not changing the bedr MR. PHILO-Well, you'r~ taking the greenhouse and making it living area. You've got a lit more living area there. MR. DYBAS-We're not ch nging the bedroom area and your bedroom area is what effects the s ptic. The system is a permitted system. the septic tank comes into it. You're MR. PHILO-Do you have any validation of that? s it in his office, because if it's a valid d system. We're not increasing the bedroom MR. DYBAS-Dave system, it's a area. MR. TURNER-My concern is that this lot is built right out to, it's just maxed. It's maxe right out. The application states that the garage is a rental u it, and then we've got a full blown house that's along with tha. We've got blacktopped driveway. You're asking for relief from! permeability, not much, but it all adds up. I MR. THOMAS-How many a~artments in that garage? MR. TURNER-He doesn't know. He's never been in it. 32 MR. DYBAS-~'re's unit. I I I on It one unit in the garage. onl y ___..,me rental MR. PHILO-Upstairs an downstairs? MR. PHILO-It looks Ii e he's taking everything here and. in there Sunday. MR. DYBAS-Upstairs. MR. TURNER-Has he rent d it since he's owned it in '91. the garage? MR. DYBAS-I don't kno MR. PHILO-There was s MR. TURNER-Well. let the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-There' one letter from D. Billings Wheeler and Sarah Wheeler. "We ppeal to the Zoning Board to deny the application for varian e to the Birchenough property on Cleverdale. It would appear that his piece of property has been utilized to the maximum tolerance. Any further building on the property would set a dangerous prece ent for all property holders on Cleverdale. since over-building on property both diminishes the attractiveness of the property and hi ders ecological stability. All surrounding property is effected w en one owner exploits land to the detriment of the common good. It is time for all property owners on Cleverdale and elsewhe e to consider not just their personal rights but the long term impl cations of their decisions on the community at large. Thank you or your consideration in this matter." MR. SICARD-It's a big Ihouse. MR. PHILO-I just. the septic tanks. I don't know how many people live in that house. th garage. It's built right out to the limit. like you said. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is it a twolstory house. currently. there. or is it just a one story? I MR. TURNER-Yes. It's la two story. MR. DYBAS-We're addinJ 150 square feet to the existing structure. Basically. what's the~e. I mean. you're filling in one corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-I meanl. really. if they needed more space. they could utilize the apa1tment. the space over the garage. MR. DYBAS-The primary expansion is for his library. That's the primary expansion. T ask someone to put a library out over the garage. if you want to use it. it's possible. but it's not practical. I mean. to ask someone to walk out into the cold to use it. and asking for 148 square foot. it's part of this variance. I mean. it's a preexisti g condition. The footprint is there. except for this 148 square f et. and it's my understanding. the way the Ordinance is written. 'f we're not filling this in. we do not need a variance. if I'm cor.ect. I believe that's the way. so the whole purpose of this variaþce is to fill in that corner. We're not increasing the septic ~oad. In talking to Mr. Hatin. it does have a permit. I don't havß a copy of it. It can be obtained from his I I 33 office, I'w ·ure. I cl9se are these Wheelers to that property? Do MRS. EGGLESTON-How you know? MR. DYBAS-I don't. ight now the Moodys are to the north, and Terrance is to the so tho MR. SICARD-When did you say that was built? I MR. DYBAS-The Origina~ structure was probably, like so much of it out there on Cleverdalr, pre World War II, the original camp. The garage, I have surve s from 1947. There was a garage and an apartment on that prop rty since that time. There's a survey dated '47. I MR. SICARD-Was that s~rvey made prior to the house being built? I'm trying to ascertai n when the house was built. MR. DYBAS-The house, he most recent legal document, the oldest legal document that sh ws a structure there is 1947, that I have in my possession. The I t was originally surveyed in 1877. Now, I have no idea what was there prior to ' 47. The map that I have shows the garage and s me type of a shed on the back of the garage, and a camp there in 1947. The previous owner did a lot of renovation work, I believe it was in the late 70's, primarily the way it exists today. MR. TURNER-See the dot~ed line right there? That's the greenhouse. This is the addition. I MR. DYBAS-The shaded pþrtion on that site plan is the addition. I I MR. TURNER-Yes. I I I MR. DYBAS-I think I set the question you raise. When I read the original advertisement for this variance, it said 30 feet. Now, the only thing I can see of, in reading the notes tonight, I believe they took the 0 feet back to where the walkway comes into the back of the buildi g. I I I MR. PHILO-Exactly. I I I MR. DYBAS-Because the ~resent, we're not encroaching any closer to that property line. ~n fact, the fireplace, currently, is 6.2 feet, and we are 8 feel_. MR. TURNER-He's got tol have a sum of 20 feet, all right, a max of 50, a minimum of 20. I MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, ~e's got 18 and change. All right. So, they need two foot? I I MR. TURNER-He's got 18~4, 10.4, and 8 feet. I MR. DYBAS-Do you want re to put up a large map? MR. TURNER-Yes. It mirht be easier to see. MR. CARVIN-He can go u~. He can go up a maximum of, what, 35 feet? MR. TURNER-He can go ~p on the original footprint, as long as he doesn't exceed the heiþht. MR. CARVIN-Well, that'~ what I'm saying. How high is it going to be? Is it going inl excess of the 35 feet on the original footprint? I MR. TURNER-He can't. ~e'd have to come for a variance. 34 -----..--------..-----r I I i I I I MR. DYBAS-( y. I do~'t know if you can see this, 1:. it says, there's of ,--<>his surve that were included in the paè1tet. This right here is sun room, greenhouse, whatever you want to call it, on the rear portion. he in fill area is to this side. Now, the present north setback ine is 6 foot 2 inches to the fireplace, and 8 feet 1 inch to the b ilding. We are not encroaching any farther to the north by coming out here, and the only increase in footprint on the site is this portion, here. This portion of the building, I keep hearing two st ry. This portion to the south is the two story portion. This n rth side is a one story living room, and it will remain a one stor structure. The ridge height is not going to change where it is. I I mean, it's a beautiful stone fireplace, and we don't want to h~ve to increase the height of that. So the ridges will stay where it is, and just extend farther out to cover the enclosed rear deck on the east, and cover this expansion to the west, and quite frankly it's going to end up, the library will be in the rear, the livi g room, and the dining room in the front, which the house does not have a formal dining room. MR. CARVIN-So, you're not carrying the roof line up any? MR. DYBAS-No. I MR. CARVIN-All right, land you're not expanding that roof over any closer to the other si~e of the property? I MR. DYBAS-No. I I I MR. CARVIN-So, I meanf' if this is their ridge line here, so it comes down this way, a d apparently this is going to stay flat, so that all he's doing i just enclosing this area here, enclosing that area there, but the rest of the house sits on this same footprint, with the e~cePtion of this, and I don't have a problem with that. I mean, i~ they've got a septic problem, you've got a septic system that si~s underneath that that you're going to have to move. Is that cor~ect? I MR. DYBAS-We're going Ito have to move the pump tank. We realize that. I I MR. CARVIN-And where þre you moving that? Are you moving that towards the garage or loff to the side? I I MR. DYBAS-We're movin~ it towards the garage. I I MR. CARVIN-Towards thel garage. So, we're really talking just this area in here. I I MRS. EGGLESTON-What d~es that do, if you move the septic up in here, to the permeabi~ity? , I MR. CARVIN-I don't thlink it really cares as long as the septic system is a functiohing system and in compliance with the Ordinance. I mean, ~f he wanted to put it out on the road he could, I suppose, if ~t was in compliance. I I MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I'~ talking about the permeability? Does that add to the? MR. CARVIN-No. He's and a half percent. minimal amount. I qnly reducing the permeability by, what, one $0, he's not really losing any ground, or a I MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I MR. PHILO-Actually, tHe only thing he's losing is the piece out. MR. CARVIN-Just this ~ight here. what, 100 and. So, whatever that 6 by 22 is 35 MR. PHILO-P ~ he's go~ng to end up with more building :nstead of having a g~nhouse t~ere. MR. CARVIN-Well, the greenhouse is in there. They're just incorporating the greenhouse. I MR. PHILO-They're 90i~9 to have to redo that whole roof side. I MR. CARVIN-Yes. I metn, people redo the insides of their houses all the time. If youhwant to shoot it down because he's losing, he's at 65 percent rig t now and it's going down to 63. I suppose you've got a legitimate reason for that, but in my mind, I just don't have a problem ,ith one and a half percent permeability. MR. DYBAS-I also, I th~U9ht about this thing, permeability, and one way around it, if necessary, is to give up the slate walk that comes up the front, that's over 200 square feet, which would wash any of this, I mean, lif it comes down to it, if that's what's necessary. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'l~ accept that. I MR. DYBAS-That nets ydu out 50 square feet. I MR. TURNER-Okay. Mot~on's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE ARE VARIANCE NO. 128-1992 DR. & MRS. ROBERT BIRCHENOUGH, Introduce by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: ! By granting 12 feet O~ relief on the north side setback and 19.6 feet on the south ide setback, and relief of 1.6 percent permeability. The p actical difficulty, I think this is the minimum relief necessa y to alleviate the practical difficulty, to allow this expansion. I It doesn't seem to be detrimental to any of the properties in the district. There doesn't seem to be any effect on public serviqes or facilities. They're going to renovate the addition within t~e same footprint. They are not adding any height to the overall ~tructure. The applicant has agreed to alter or change a slate wal~ in order to give more permeability to the property. . Duly adopted this 16tb day of December, 1992, by the following vote: : ! ! AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr~ Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Tu~ner i NOES: NONE (10:25 p.~.) USE VARIANCE NO. 130-t992 TYPE: UNLISTED (SUBDIVISION NO. 4- 1992) MR-5 GUIDO !PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BAY ROAD/MEADOWBROOK ROAD~ APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING NITS AND OFFICES AS PART OF PHASE I OF A THREE PHASE SUBDIVISIO . ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL USES INCLUDE DUPLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDE CES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 46 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN PHASE I. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 16.1 ACRES SECTION 179- 18 D(B)(l) . , I MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPR~SENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:25 p.m.) , I MRS. EGGLESTON -The warlren County Planning Board approved with the comment, "The Board iS~· concerned that they do not want to create a situation where these 6 single family homes will need to come back before the Board f r a variance, by creating these non- conformities." STAFF INPUT 36 Notes from taft. US~ Variance No. 130-1992. Guido !ssarelli. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: A plicant is proposing to construct forty-six single family (46) ho es as Phase I of a three phase development project. CONFORMANCE I WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief for forty-six (46) single family dwellings from Section 179-18D( 1) permitted uses in a Multifamily Residential zone. (b)[l]. multi amily dwellings. including apartments. condominiums. project and townhouses of fewer than one hundred (100) units. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Is reasonable return possible if the land is used a zoned? Applicant asserts that reasonable return of the land i not possible as zoned because of market trends against multifa ily residences and in favor of single family units. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot uni ue and not due to the unreasonableness 0 the Ordinance? The applicant asserts that the proposed Phase I 0 project is a buffer to proposed multifamily dwellings on the golf I course. but does not directly address the question of the possi Ie uniqueness of the property which would require a variance to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the nei hborhood character? Applicant asserts thatlthe proposed Phase I of the development will be similar in charactef with the neighborhood and will not have an adverse effect on said1neighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Attached is a packet f information that was recommended by the Planning Board at thei March 24. 1992 meeting for consideration by the ZBA. in their rev1ew process of the use variance application for Phase I of the pr posed project. Included in the packet are planning staff notes f om March 11. 1992. comments from Rist-Frost of March 20. 1992. a letter from Building and Codes Enforcement from March 6. 1992. let~er from Queensbury Department of Wastewater from March S. 1992. a l+tter from concerned citizens from March 18. 1992 and the minutes f the Planning Board meeting of March 24. 1992." I I MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cha~rman. Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm Michael O'Connor from the lawlfirm of Little and O'Connor. and I'm here representing the appli~ant. Guido Passarelli. Mr. Passarelli is with me here. He is the owner and developer of this particular project. With me also !is Thomas Nace from Haanen Engineering. and Leon Steves. from VanD~sen and Steves. and also Susan Balfour from Balfour Realty. As pa~t of our presentation. we will probably call upon all these peop~e to give you some information. some background. If I can!. I will first just give you some general information. and maybe!some general comments as to its background. Basically. the projec is located on the east side of Bay Road. right here. just nort of Bay Meadows Golf Course. It's what's called or has been re erred to as the old Aronson Farm. To the north of this is Bayberry Court which was developed by John Hughes. Mr. Hughes is present ere, as well as some of the adjoining owners that live in Bayberry ourt. Immediately north of Bayberry Court is Adirondack Communit College. This whole site from Bay Road to Meadowbrook Road is z9ned MR-S. which is basically a multifamily residential type zone. I I will say for the record, and only for the purpose of the record. ~hat I have reservation as to requirement of a use variance. In I my opinion, what the applicant miqht be required to have here I is an area variance, because what we are proposing is still a r~sidential use. We're not changing the use. although we are talkin~ about single family homes on a portion of the site, as opposed tq multifamily or duplexes. I look upon that as being dimensional. n!o different than the side yard setbacks that you've been talking ~bout earlier, the size of dwellings and whatnot. I discussed this with the Zoning Administrator. He has disagreed with me in h~s written opinion. and that is the purpose and the reason that we have filed for the use variance. At this point. it would be pre~ature to challenge his decision. and I want to see the outcome of! the actual application before this Board before we do that. t say that solely for the purpose of the record. We are here ~ith a use variance application, and I will approach this as a us~ variance application and present what is necessary for that. i Basically what we're talking about is a portion of Phase It wh~ch is everything to the east of this line. 37 as you see right herþ. We are not talking about any' ,ng in the very first ~rtion of 1hase I. The Bay Road corridor, i"f you will, has an overlay that wi hin 1,000 linear feet of either side of Bay Road you can have offi e complexes or office development, and what we're proposing on the~e 14 sites in here are office complexes. or office buildings. What we're talking about is the 46 lots that we have in this area here~ What we're proposing is basically single family. We would be allowed to have 92 duplex units in there. There would be still 4f buildings. but there would be 92 families instead of 46. We are doing what most developers do not do. We are giving up some development rights and trying to accommodate everybody's desires o~ wishes. We could submit this map as it presently is COnfigUre1. to the Planning Board. and go through the site review and the I subdivision approval for a duplex type subdivision. Initial~y, I think something of this nature was approached. In fact. ~¡I think the prior owners had, at one time, concept approval for a proximately 400 housing units on a portion of this site. not the ortion out near Meadowbrook Road, but just the portion before Ba~ Road, prior to Mr. Passarelli buying the property. When this was presented to the Planning Board in March, I was not part of the I development team, so I'll really upon Mr. Nace, if I am wrong, a~ to part of my recollection or understanding of what took place. A~ that time, the lots that were proposed were 8.000 square foot lotsf and I think many of the comments of Staff, which have been incorforated into this meeting, were written on that basis, and for th~t reason, I object to their incorporation in this particular applicþtion. At that time, many of the neighbors appeared and there wasl a very lengthy and well thought out letter prepared and a petit~on form was presented on behalf of the neighbors. It was t*eir concern about the density, and their concern particularly about the closeness of a multifamily development next to t~eir single family residence, and Staff has made a comment. in this review, as to the uniqueness of this I particular property, .s opposed to maybe other MR-S properties. There are two things t~at we would hold out as being unique. One is the overlay of the !commercial use that is permitted. This is something that we're trying to preserve. People ask, why don't we just ask for a re-zoning for single family. Well, if you actually look at what we're trying to do, there's a natural division. here, by a low area, and we'ire trying to keep everything to the west of that commercial. everything to the east of that as residential. If we went in and looked[ for zoning, that configuration would be a very odd personalized ~ype zone line, if we were going to maintain the integrity of maYb1 two neighborhoods, two atmospheres on the same piece of proper y. It would be very subject. and maybe suspect. of being spot ,zoning. and it would probably not really fit I everybody's particula~ desires or needs. and even in the earlier Staff comments. we haVe avoided the re-zoning issue because what we've tried to do is ~ake best use of the zoning that we can. We that developed the si~e have to bring in our infrastructure. our sewer line from Meadowþrook Road. That's an expensive proposition at this time. okay. ~o justify doing that. we've got to get some residential use in add tion to the commercial use. What we've done is pick a small areaf the residential. 46 out of 146. and said. let us develop that as single family. because there's no market for mUltifamily or townho~ses. now or in the near future. and we have a professional realtor who will give an opinion to that effect for your record. with the pommercial. that will get us off of Phase I. It'll give us some lif¢. It'll give us some reasonable return from the property. If we ,ctually present to you, Mr. Passarelli has informed me. and I donLt know how formal you want to be doing this. Mr. Turner. but Mr. rassarelli tells me that his cost to the property alone is $1.~ million. That is development costs with conservative projectiqn of the sewer line and the road. would be some place in the nat~re of $26 to $27.000 per lot. MR. PHILO-Excuse me, Mike. utilities? Does that include the roads and the MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Th~t, by itself, if you really look at it from 38 the mathemé cal point! of view. just means that he's 1 gOing to make a proh t on thel site. What we're talking abòut here is minimizing, losses. T~ cost that got into the site. it's just not going to work. The c st of bringing the sewer across the site is going to be very prohi itive. It's going to be a little different than where you put in he water line in the subdivision and a road. What we're really try~ng to do is minimize the loss. Basically. though. and let me get!back to the question of uniqueness. Besides the land form. which i provides a unique or natural division of perhaps character of ~he neighborhood. in trying to preserve the integrity of the two 4ifferent uses that are permitted. you have already development. j~st to the north of us. of substantial single family homes. Why. an4 I think these people were surprised to find out that they also wer~ zone MR-5. Apparently that whole strip is zoned MR-5. right up ~o the College. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-They do ~ot want multifamily right behind them. If you look at the multif.mily zone. we're entitled to build duplexes on 10.000 square foot tots. We can have one unit. or one townhouse unit for each 5.000 sqfare foot in whatever configuration we put. a 20.000 square foot ~ot. we could have four townhouses on that parcel. and you need 1~.000 for each principal building. I think is the way it's written.: When we went in. in March. or when the applicant went in in M~rch. the neighbors objected to the fact that these were 8.000 squar~ foot lots that were shown along here. The road configuration. at!the suggestion of the Planning Board and the suggestion of the nei~hbors. was revised. We had a meeting here. I'm not exactly sure. ~ome time during the summer. early summer. in Mayor June. We pre~ented this plan to the neighborhood as a revision. and I think! we received pretty good support from the neighbors. They und,rstand that we are going to develop the property. They under~tand that we have certain rights. but they asked us to respect th~ir rights. and we asked them to respect our rights. and I think ov~rall they were generally pleased. There are neighbors here. I'm i sure that they're going to say something before I get done. or ~efore we all get done. Along this boundary. we purposely put in lo~s in excess of even the 10.000 square foot lot. If you take a IQok at this. this pretty much coincides the actual development al~ng the property. Most of these lots are 12.400. There's one ~hat's 15.007. There's one that's 19.000. another 15.000. one 14~300. The smallest is one on the cul-de-sac. and that's 11.730. Tht next one is 21.000 square feet. So. we've tried to accommodate t~ese people as best that we can. and really that's why we're here ~ooking for a variance as perhaps are-zoning or some other type rel~ef. We have also offered. and we would have no objection to the !Board conditioning it's approval upon a stipulation that there: be no accessory building wi thin 20 feet of the north line of this þarticular adjoining or common boundary line between us and Bayberry Court. and that seemed to make some of the people there happy. I :spoke directly to some of the comments. The comments of the Couqty. the County Board approved it after discussion. and we ha~ a lengthy discussion with them. They had one comment that they ~ere concerned that if you created 46 single family lots in here.: every time somebody came for a bUilding permit. they'd need a~other variance. I said it was my opinion. based upon our ordinanþe that you wouldn't need that. I verified that with Mr. Martin.: I've written Mr. Martin a letter to that effect. and I believe.! Jim. you've agreed with me? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That'~ correct. MR. O'CONNOR-As long a6 the single family residences are built in I compliance with the s~tbacks. they will not need an additional variance. if the Boar~ were to grant the variance that we have requested. and that w_s the manner or the nature of the comments that were attached to ~he County comment. The Staff Comments. as I've indicated. the be~t that I can read. the present comments were that they questioned' whether or not this was unique to this 39 particular operty. a~d I think in the nature that we :re trying to set up a'duffer zon~. if you will. to the property t~the north. we're trying to prese~ve the natural land mass difference between the front and the back. With the commercial and residential. there are some unique featur~s here. Also. I'm not 100 percent familiar with it. and you may donsider this unique. that this property has some wetlands on it t~at maybe you're not gOing to find in other MR-S zones. which rea~IY restrict your usage of your acreage. to some degree. So. wha~ we're trying to do is accommodate the best we can. The fact that Iyou have a golf course down here is a little bit different because ~ou don't have that many properties that also have that type of set ~p. The other comments that Staff made were really by reference. ~s I understand it. to the earlier comments that were presented i~ March. So. I guess I would address that. The Staff Comment. isl there adverse effect on the neighborhood character. I'll let tþe neighborhood speak to that. We really don't think it is. Wle are giving up the development rights by going to single familYlas opposed to having multifamily or duplex. and I think i t actual~y would be. in many of the eyes that are looking upon this pro~ect. as opposed to being something that's adverse. If you look þt the comments of Staff. in March of 1992. and you weigh the fact I that they had a different plan before them. They had a plan for 8.1000 square foot lots. I think we can still answer those comments.! They seem to center on the fact that the proposal before the Bo~rd is for single residential lots on 8.000 square foot. What app~ars to be happening is the creation of a new zone. because I think þt this time. or that time. even now. there is no zone in the Tm m for residential units less than 10.000 square feet. We. basic~llY. have amended our submittal. We're not talking about creatingla new zone. We do have residential where it is permitted. with ¡ots of 10.000 square feet. I guess. specifically. and whatl sometimes is rightfully of concern. if you look at the letter ~f March 18th. that was written by the neighbors. we basical~y. by changing and amending the proposal. have answered most of 1 the concerns that they've raised. to the extent that we can. They had a real concern. then. with density. What we've done is giv~n up half of our density on the 46 lots that you have in question ~efore you. Instead of having 92 families there. we're going to Ihave 46 families there. or hopefully we're going to have 46 fami~ies there. They had a question as to the 8.000 square foot lots~ We're talking about 10.000. For the most part. along that Town Iline. we're talking 12.000 or better. We have only one lot thatl's 11.700. So. we've gone up to the point and even beyond what w~ would be required if we were going to build duplexes along there. I They talk about the impact on the school system. and again. we þave half the families on the 46 units that we're developing. Øo we. conceivably. would have half the children. or whatever I proportion you would have in the normal single family resident~al zone. They have a concern about traffic. Again. you have half o~ the families. You're going to have half of the traffic created fOF those particular lots. If you go through the letter. I think i~ most part. we've answered their concerns. We've. in fact. lesseqed the impact of what we propose and what could be given there. ~s of right. right now. They had a concern about setbacks. Numbbr 11. and that we tried to address. particularly as to th4 common setback along the common boundary line. Most of the p~ople who signed this letter were at our meeting in June. or e~rlY May. I'm not sure. I think it was in early June. because af~er we met with them. we went back to Staff. and at that point. we Fan into the change of Staff that was going on in the Town. and Jt'eally got into some confusion. We filed applications and then Iwere taken off an agenda. because at that time we were deemed no~ to be complete with our application. and it wasn't until Mr. Mart~n came back that I decided that we would start this over again. 1 and I explained that to the neighbors as to why we didn't come in here before we started talking in June. Basically. we are pre~enting to this Board the same application that was presented to the neighbors in our meeting. our informal meeting here. Tom. would you like to give any more detail as to exactly what we're doiOg. and maybe the sewer and water? 40 TOM NACE MR. NACE-Okay. For tþe record. my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. I belie~e Mike has covered most of the pertinent issues fairly well. ~s he stated. we're using natural swale with a stream in it. here. i as a buffer between the office development and residential. We ~ave worked with the Town over the past two years to address the i$sue of the sewer into the property. and have worked out a prelimina~y agreement as to how we would get into the Town sewer system. We Iwill end up having pump stations back at the back end of the property on Meadowbrook Road which will pump into a common force main co~ing from Hiland. and then we will serve the residential portion o~ the property. on this portion up front we will require a small p~mp station which will pump into that gravity system. It'll be ser~ed by municipal water. The roads will be built to the Town standards. Unless you have any other specific questions. Mike's fai~ly well covered everything. MR. PHILO-Tom. on tha~. what size sewer line coming in? MR. NACE-It'll be an e~ght inch line through the development. okay. ! MR. PHILO-What size is! Hiland's. eight? MR. NACE-Hiland's is ~ force main. That's a 10 inch force main. and we worked out the 'capacity to make sure. Even before Hiland had given up. I think ~t was about a year ago. they gave up some of their previously purc~ased capacity in the Town system. and even prior to that. ther, was enough capacity here to go with approximately 300 sma~l family housing units. Now we're down to 146. plus there was. I in addition to that mUltifamily housing capacity for the offic~. MR. PHILO-As you come gut on Ridge Road. what size is that pipe. 10 inch? I MR. NACE-Comes out on ~eadowbrook. you mean? MR. PHILO-When it come$ out to the City. where Hiland hooked on to the City. MR. NACE-Okay. Hiland! hooked on to the. well. this is all. I say Hiland. it's now ownedlby the Town. okay. but it's a 10 inch force main down to the other side of Meadowbrook stream. and then from there on down to the pump station. at the Cronin Road. on Meadowbrook. just nortq of Quaker. so that's 12 inch that goes from there down to Quaker. ~nd then it's pumped back up into the City. along Bay Road. okay. land I'm not sure what size that is. but we checked the capacity !all the way back through. into the City system. to verify that! there was adequate reserve there. MR. PHILO-How many bedtooms in an average home? MR. NACE-I could probaþly let Mr. Passarelli speak to that. GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-There ~ould be three bedrooms. My name is Guido Passarelli. I'm the builder. There would be three bedrooms. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What ikind of square footage are you looking at on the houses? MR. PASSARELLI-Between 16 to 1800 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Sixteen to èighteen hundred. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Two car garage. or one? MR. PASSARELLI-Mostly two car garages. 41 MR. CARVIN· '0 story ~tructure. basically. ranch type thing? MR. PASSARELLI-Yes. MR. PHILO-I went over: and looked at the property, Mike. and how close is that brook go~ng through there? How close is that to his property? MR. NACE-The Old Maid'~ Brook that goes down through the property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. It com~s through. now there's a. one of the reasons that we're using it a. a buffer is that there's a 75 foot setback required by the Town O~dinance. for any structure. from the Brook. So. that's a 75 foot ion each side. So. we'll have a 150 foot corridor. here. witho~t any structures. and it makes a very nice. natural division betw~en the two uses. There's also a. I don't remember whether it's a 25 or 50 foot hard surface setback from the Brook. We will need. ~bviously need. permits from DEC for crossing the Brook with the twd roads. MR. PHILO-That little ~rook over on Meadowbrook Road. MR. NACE-This? Okay.:I think what you're referring to. there's a culvert that the Town ~nstalled along Meadowbrook that comes up to here, and it crosses IMeadowbrook in a culvert and then sort of opens up into the mean~ering stream. MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. NACE-I don't know ~hat there's a name for that, but in front of this property. MR. PHILO-It's not on his property then? MR. NACE-No, it's not. MR. TURNER-No. MR. NACE-That's all i~ the culvert. MR. PHILO-I see that m~rker. It must be the next one back. Right about in there. MR. NACE-It's right a~out. the brook. the culvert crosses right here. so there's a little bit of a brook that comes down here. and this is all one culver:t along here. MR. THOMAS-On the comm~rcial end of this thing, it would be on the west side of the devel~pment. how many square feet of office space do you anticipate on h~w many acres? MR. O'CONNOR-It would þe in compliance with whatever the MR-5 zone requires. or provides: for. It's the same thing. to a degree. that's across the street. with some of the offices that were built on property that was d~vided by Dr. Brassel and John Hughes. that's the nature of the dev~lopment. Part of an answer that we might gi ve you. which mightl not be satisfactory. but all this. okay. we're very preliminar~ here. When we applied for the subdivision application to the PlaQning Board. they recognized that we couldn't subdi vide in the mann~r that we wanted to subdivide. We had to apply for a variance. If we get the variance. that puts us only halfway to first baseJ We then have to go back to the Planning Board with the subdivi~ion application. with site plan approval. we have to get the Town Board to sign on a formal agreement for the sewer district. We have to get a wetlands permit from DEC. for the road crossing. We will have to talk to them as to some drainage features that will be incorporated into the site plan. Everything that we will do will be in compliance with all the rules and 42 regulation The only!variance that we have been told at we will need. that '--"we're awaIje of. at this point. is this question of putting single family in an area that permits duplexes and multifamilies. but doe~n't specify that you can put single family. I don't know if that ~nswers your question or not. MR. MARTIN-We had thisisame question. when it came before us on the Planning Board. and T!om was there that night. and there was a lengthy discussion as to. there already is an established character of office space. and Ii think this may jog Tom's memory. across the street. and it was widely thought on the Planning Board at that time. anyhow. that that was a fairly good looking office park over there of sorts. and if lit could be done. that that theme be carried over to this side of the road to make it consistent. and it was said. if you review t~e minutes there. that that would attempt to be done with this off~ce space in the front. MR. THOMAS-You're tal~ing professional office space? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-For doctor~. lawyers. whatever. MR. NACE-Each of thos!e office lots will need to go before the Planning Board for site plan review. and at that time the issue that Jim has brought ~p would certainly be addressed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike. Mr. Passarelli is the developer of Herald Square. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. he ~s. MRS. EGGLESTON-How would you compare the two projects? Like. they're very spacey l~ts up there. Are we right that these are about a quarter of an! acre to a third of an acre lots. most of these? MR. O'CONNOR-They're tetter than these. in this particular zone that you're talking aþout. okay. for the single family. there's better than a quarte:t acre. If you take your 12.000. you're talking 48.000 square !feet. and your acre is 43.000 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what are they in Herald Square? MR. PASSARELLI-20.000 ¡or better. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. ISo. this is a much smaller house. a smaller project. cheaper hous~s. would you say. or are they going to be more because of the a~ea? MR. PASSARELLI-They'l be more because of the area and the land cost. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The other unique part of it is. on the front portion. where we're asking for!the variance. we're showing 12.000 or better square foot lots. and ¡we're going to build single family houses. which typically gives! you two cars for one family. The back portion of the lot. by zoning. and even the front. presently. we could put two famili~s. which would bring four cars and two families on a 10.000 _quare foot lot. MR. PHILO-You'd cut it right in half. MR. TURNER-Right in the back. MR-5. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. better than half. 43 MRS. EGGLE ,)N-I was ,ust trying to get a picture illY mind of what it woù-J:d look 1ik¡e, I mean, comparing it, like, t:ð. MR. 0' CONNOR-His home ~ from what Mr. Passarelli has told me, is going to be an upgrad~d home, particularly trying to preserve the commercial relationship which is up front. There's a nice physical division from that, f~om those house, but he wants professional type offices out there. and he wants housing in the back that would support it. MR. NACE-Just, you'reitrying to picture what it's going to look like, the size of the ilot, now I'm not saying anything about the houses, but the size ot the lot will be exactly enough, it will be greater, actually, tha~ the affordable housing subdivision that has just been done out on Corinth Road. Those lots are all 100 by 100, or 10,000 square feet. These will be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. ~hank you. MR. O'CONNOR-They have! units on them you can go see, too. I mean, from what I've seen, tþey do not appear to be right on top of each other. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-How much green area are you going to have between each unit, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever !the setbacks are, they will be abided by, Tom. I don't know, sp,cifical1y, because I don't think the actual width and dimension ofi each building has been determined. MR. PHILO-They must have a selection of maybe one or two houses, three houses in there. MR. PASSARELLI-It's h4rd to tell, right now. We don't know the market. It could be ithree houses, four different houses, five. It's impossible to te~l you now what kind of houses I'm going to build. MR. MARTIN-The other unique aspect of this particular site I'd like to point out, and it's la1ways been in mY mind since I saw this back in March, is that, as ~r. O'Connor has indicated, this whole area, both this site and north of it and south of it is MR-5 zoning, but in fact you have sing1~ family housing that's been there some time, to the north, that's dn half acre lots or more, and the Town has, right now, before it, ia proposal for multifamily housing, and a petition for zone cha~ge to the south that would cluster 97 units on 30 acres, that ab~ts this property to the south, and this serves, from a planning perspective, this current proposal is a transition between mor~ luxurious half acre single family dwelling lots to the north, Ofi what's proposed here, and then your most intensive dwellings, Qr housing to the south, and this seems in line with the gradual progression, or transition. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of this was broke off right here, because that was the end of the de~elopment that we do up on the north, up on Bayberry Court, and in fact we carried Phase I back there at a little bit of an odd a!ngle because everything to the east of that won't even be develop'd. You spoke of green space, this is all going to be green here~ and a good portion of this area is going to be green, simply becauée of the area, and you're going to have that corridor down through ~here which is a 150 foot corridor, which is going to be a buffer éven from Bay Road. So, it's going to be a good perception of a green area. For the purpose of the record, Mr. Passarelli, you heard me speak on your behalf earlier when I talked about your cost of being, between $26 and $27,000 per lot. Is that a correct statement? 44 MR. PASSAR ~I-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-And that !considers your land cost and improvements. It doesn't actually co~sider carrying costs from the time that you got into this wonderf~l event until the time you're going to get out of it. MR. TURNER-Mr. O'Conno~. I have a question there. before you get on too far. You mentione~ the fact that you want the Zoning Board to. no accessory building !closer than 20 feet to the boundary line. Let me ask you. do ~ny of the neighbors have sheds near the boundary line. abutting these properties? MR. O'CONNOR-Some of them do. MR. TURNER-Then what's their concern? MR. O'CONNOR-We didn't. we're willing to do that. okay. Mr. Turner. because we thought it ~ould make them happier. I understand. and I didn't argue the poi~t. that they in fact. some of them built to the property line. Why shouldn't we be able to? MR. TURNER-Okay. Undet 100 square feet. you can build within five feet of that line. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that. We even got into a big discussion about pools. and if so~ebodY built a pool with a cabana. would that be considered an acces.ory building or not. MR. TURNER-I know. but you've got Lots 18. 19.20. that are 12.400 square feet. all righit. You put a house on there. a two car garage. it doesn't l.ave you a lot of room. and to move the accessory building 20 teet from the back property line. It's going to take away their ba¢k yard. If they want to put a 200 square foot accessory building. MR. O'CONNOR-We think that we can live with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would it be a deed restriction. right in the deeds? MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. We are offering to do it that way. We talked about it. We don't want to go back. I don't think all the neighbors who were present at that earlier meeting are present tonight. and I really wouldn't want to start allover again. and find out whether or nQt they thought 10 feet was more reasonable than 20 feet. MR. TURNER-No. I thin~ that's an unfair compromise. to the people that are buying the lpts. for Mr. Passarelli. versus the people that have the lots in Bayberry Courts that have sheds right on the boundary line. MR. O'CONNOR-You don't have to condition your approval on that. MR. TURNER-I know we don't. but I'm just saying. I think that's. MR. O'CONNOR-But if You did condition your approval on that. maybe it would be an issue t~at the Planning Board would want to discuss. and could come to a f~nal decision on. We have offered it as a stipulation. We're w!illing to stand by that as a stipulation. We're willing to do it 'as a deed restriction. We don't want to get into an issue on it. basically. For the record. I would ask Susan Balfour to come up. SUSAN BALFOUR MRS. BALFOUR-Susan Balfour from Balfour Realty. Mr. O'Connor asked me to give you a litt~e insight on the real estate market and the availability of townhouses. which I'm sure you know that there are many. many townhouses $vailable. only eight have sold that are new. 45 -..4 _____ through th'"1ful tiple L¡isting Service this year, and ~ lon' t feel that there _ a market ~or that on this particular prope~y. I feel that asking Mr. Passar~lli to build townhomes there would not give a reasonable return on! it in this market, and I don't think so in the foreseeable future. The next five or ten years, who knows what's going to happen~ but definitely not in the next five years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are thete a lot of them vacant within the Town? MRS. BALFOUR-There are! 30 available right now for resale, over at least 30, in Queen Victorias Grant. Dixon Heights, there are about 10 of them on the market. They've only sold two this year, the Michaels Group has, and Masullo Brothers sold six, and Cedar Court, of course, is trying to sellout and go to a new project. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. PHILO-Can I ask yo~, are you going in and put the utilities and roads in first? MR. PASSARELLI-Yes. MR. PHILO-All of them? MR. PASSARELLI-All of them. MR. MARTIN-They have to. MR. PASSARELLI-That's the first step. MR. MARTIN-That's a Town requirement, usually. MR. NACE-I'd pre-quali~y that we, for Phase I, obviously, we have to put all the roads iþ, but as far as utilities, we'll bring the sewer line on through,okay, we have to put the sewer line through and the pump station i~, but we, obviously, would not construct all the roads in the future phases. MR. PHILO-But your utilities would be in, your sewer and water? MR. NACE-Utilities. Uafortunately, the sewer is on the wrong side of the project for the ¡way we're phasing it, but that's the way it is. So, yes, the sewer has to go all the way through the entire project, with the initial start of Phase I. MR. O'CONNOR-On the qU$stion of reasonable use and reasonable rate of return, I can test~fy, besides just being somebody who is an advocate for the appliçant, given the fact that I am very active in the real estate marke~, and am aware of what is going on, and in fact I am the attorne'y for the homeowners association in Queen Victorias Grant. Thqse people there are having a significant problem selling their. units. The last one that I was involved with, the person, it b~longed to somebody that simply assumed the mortgage, giving up th.ir initial down payment. What is happening there is that a lot ~f what were owner units are turning into rental units. People are just not buying townhouses, and if you watch the ads in the paper, you will see that the Dixon Heights people are now adverti~ing the sale of vacant lots, where you could build your own townhou~es, at, I think, $9,000, much less than what we are going to get iQto for our initial cost for townhouses. I also am, and it's publtc record when I'm telling you, the attorney for Cedar Court, which. is Ladd Enterprises. They recently went to the Planning Board an~ amended their subdivision to cut out this building on the end o~ the road nearest Bay Road from what was a townhouse project to be a stand alone duplex. So that they could sell these units. Tney had one of those two units, that one building, the one sid~ of that building sold, the other side is occupied by a rental tenant. They have a framed four unit townhouse further down in the development. They can't even get people to come look at it. They have the proposal that is being 46 worked on' come back in to the Town to try and create Ingle home homes in w~e they were going to do townhouses. I don~ know why. but there just does n~t appear to be a market for townhouses. I think the same thing ~s true with the higher end of the market. which was Woodbury's ~evelopment. They still have permission to build two buildings o~ townhouses which they aren't even touching because they can't get anybody to go near it. So. our area is not supporting townhouses.¡ multiple houses at this point. and when I say. at this point. I~m talking about within the reasonable near future. I don't thi~k you're going to see anything. what's out there is inventory. fot five years or better. and if you're in that position. you're not g~ing to get any rate of return. or any return on your property for. period of five years. I think you make a fairly good argument tihat you're not getting a reasonable rate of return on your propert¡y under the present permitted zoning. So. that would be our pres.ntation. MR. TURNER-I've got a 9uestion. What's the taxes on that piece of property right now. vacant? MR. O'CONNOR-$10.000. MR. TURNER-That's total. Town. County. school taxes? It doesn't sound like it. MR. O'CONNOR-One of the bills was $10.000. He doesn't know if that included his school ta~ or not. MR. TURNER-Was that a aeptember bill? That's school taxes. That would be school tax. MR. O'CONNOR-School ta~ might have been $10.000. so your Town and County would be $6.000. One benefit to the Town. if you're looking at overall benefit. is ¡that we will put in a revenue stream for the sewer district. by bringing this housing development into that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Martin has asked us to consider whether or not we would allow others to join to us. to the system. and we have indicated that we are .illing to do that. We're trying to develop the property and not ;have an adverse effect upon anybody. and trying to still. at th. same time. m~tigate our losses. and just go forward. Mr. Passare~li's been at the table trying to find out what the proper applic.tion is for almost a year. and there's been a lot of turmoil. but tþere's been a lot of change of personnel and a lot of change of opinion. Every Board he goes to tells him to do something differently. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm done talking. MR. TURNER-I don I t see anything here that addresses that sewer issue. except that letter from Mike Shaw. but that really doesn't say a whole lot. Why wþuldn't they let you come up Bay Road? What was the reason they wouldn't extend that district up Bay Road? MR. O'CONNOR-I have an interest in a piece of property on Bay Road. I tried to get them to ;extend the sewer district up Bay Road to my own property. which i$ right across the street here. The cost figures that they got were astronomical. MR. TURNER-No. I mealn to his property. just to his property. Wasn't there an initia~ presentation made to bring that sewer line up to his property on Bay Road? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think so. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think there was. discussion about it. I think there was some MR. NACE-About three or four years ago there was an initial proposal that would have actually brought it up past the College. 47 " and I don" 'hink i t c~me as far as the Town Hall. but .~ did come up past th~ollege anq picked up some of the apartmentlfouses. and as Mike indicated. the! cost of it was just out of sight. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know that. No. but I mean. just in reference to his project here. MR. NACE-To be able to serve this project. by far the most cost effective way is to go' across Meadowbrook. MR. TURNER-Go over Meadowbrook? Okay. That answered my question. MR. O'CONNOR-When they came up Bay Road. they did try to cut it off. I recall that. and they kept coming north trying to make it. get more basis to make it more reasonable. In fact. they went to Cedar Court. Cedar Co,rt has a sewer line in the ground. with the thought that they might possibly hook up. They just found out. when they did the study. they inquired people. MR. MARTIN-We're going to revisit this whole issue. There's a scheduled meeting the! 29th. Tuesday night. I'm going to confer wi th Tom at the end ,of the evening tonight. for the involved parties. meaning this !project. as well as Bay Meadows. hopefully the College. and any $ther interested large. or owners of large properties up there. tQ try and address this septic issue. and now that we're seeing all this development occur. somewhat simultaneously. that w. can size the lines and the system properly and plan for it now. r~ther than have to tear it up or make major modifications in the future. So. the Town Board. as well as the engineers of the projeqt proponents are going to get together in an informal meeting and t~y and hash this out. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARING OPBNBD CAROL KILBURN MRS. KILBURN-My name is Carol Kilburn. and I live on Meadowbrook Road. approximately a¢ross from the sewer pump station. and my first question is. whY was this the first notice we ever had of this project? MR. PHILO-You live across from the pumping station of his property? MRS. KILBURN-Yes. Well. right across. it's ei ther multifamily housing or the sewer p~mping station. MR. PHILO-Either I'm wrong. or I think you're wrong. MRS. KILBURN-Well. I know where I live. MR. PH¡LO-There's no houses across from that property on Meadowbrook. is there? MR. TURNER-Yes. there is. Tommy. her house is the last house on the right going towardS Hiland Park. MRS. KILBURN-The brown house. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-It's just about right here. MR. MARTIN-The answer to that question is that the only time this has been officially before the Town. to this point. is at Sketch Plan. with the Planning Board. and the Planning Board is not required to notify at Sketch Plan phase. The notifications go out at Preliminary. which is the next step that they will be taking. and you will be renotified at the Preliminary Stage. for the 48 Planning Be' 'd. See. you were notified of this as a vi.,-","ance. and you'll be notified again at the Preliminary Stage of the subdivision. It's only been seen by the Planning Board at Sketch Plan and that's not required to be notified at that time. MR. PHILO-Is that where the big trucks are on the right hand side? MR. TURNER-No. no. jus~ above it. the next house UP. the last house on the right. just before you hit the big field. MR. STEVES-The one house just above the big trucks. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. KILBURN-And my ne~t question concerns the sewer district. Has that already been made~ the sewer district? MR. TURNER-Their part pf it? No. MRS. KILBURN-No. because they conveniently left us out of the sewer district. when they put it in. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know they did. MRS. KILBURN-And I just wondered how. you know. they wouldn't hook up one house. how are they going to allow all this other stuff? MR. TURNER-Didn't they have to put grinder pumps in where you are? That's a force main. MRS. KILBURN-They had to do it for Howks and. MR. TURNER-They put gr~nder pumps in. for Howk and Steele. MRS. KILBURN-Yes. MR. PHILO-Why was that? Did the elevation change? MR. TURNER-No. it's a force main. ~ MR. PHILO-That's what I'm saying. it's got to be a difference in elevation. right. that~s why they put that grinder pump in? MR. NACE-Yes. I'm not sure why this house wasn't included. MR. PHILO-No. I say. when they put a grinder pump in. it's because of the elevation change? MR. NACE-Yes. That's correct. MR. TURNER-See. she's not tied into it. Greene's are not tied into it. and it goes right in front of their house. MRS. KILBURN-They left us out of the Quaker Road Sewer District and the Hiland Park Sewer pistrict. and now I'm going to find a sewer pumping station riqht 1ft front of mY house. MR. NACE-If I could re$pond to that a little bit. The sewer pump station. it will be screened. during the design we work with the Town and the Town Pla~ning Board to make sure that we provide a li ttle more amenities. as far as visual impact. than the Hiland Pump Station has. As (ar as the sewer district. we are not in the sewer district. We wtll be sitting down with the Town Board and talking about whether they want to serve this parcel as an outside user or as a new extension of the District that we formed. That will be up to the Town Board. If there were properties across the street. or if there are properties across the street that would like to be served. we will probably have a gravity sewer coming right along. from this lower road in Phase III. The gravity sewer 49 will probab- . come up a!nd into the pump station. and an',__, roperties across the _~ad could easily be served by that gravity sewer. MR. TURNER-Yes. You'~e going to have a standby generator and a pump station like the þther one. right? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. Her concern is odor. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does the pump station have odor or a lot of noise? MR. NACE-I can't speak to that. I'm not familiar with the Hiland Park Pump Station. MR. TURNER-I know the other people down on the end of Meadowbrook. MR. NACE-Can you smell it all the way down at your house. the Hiland Station? MRS. KILBURN-No. not u$ua11y. MR. NACE-Okay. The Hi~and Station is approximately here. MR. PHILO-It's supposed to be a sealed unit. MR. NACE-They're not totally sealed. MR. TURNER-No. You can't seal them. MR. PHILO-What type of system are you putting in there? What kind of pumping station are you putting in. then? MR. NACE-It'll be a submersible pump station. MR. TURNER-Yes. just similar to Hiland. MR. PHILO-Open manhole cover? MR. NACE-No. Well. it'll be all underground. okay. There are vent pipes and there are thi!ngs you can do to prevent the odors. I know they had odor problem~. originally. with the large pump station down at the corner of "eadowbrook and Quaker. In fact I. when I was with Rist-Frost. worked on some odor controls. I'm not sure what was eventually d!one. but there are things you can do to mitigate that problem. if it's a problem. Generally you find it in the larger stations. As far as pump stations go. this is going to be a relatively small one. 146 houses. they're not that major a flow to require a big station. MR. PHILO-To answer this young lady's question that came uP. why she couldn't get into ~heir sewer district. I think that line that went up was private. Gary Bowen paid for the whole thing. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. The sewer district stops at the bridge. MR. PHILO-Right. and if he hadn't have paid for the whole thing himself. I think you could have gotten on that. It was private. MRS. KILBURN-He offered to pay to run the sewer line to our property. when it was being installed. but Mr. Montesi talked him out of it. because it wasn't good for the Town. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ltke to respond for the record. I think Mrs. Kilburn's concerns would be addressed at the time of site plan review. or final subdivision review. Basically. what we're talking about here really isn't an issue with what her concerns are. We're talking about whether or not these 46 units are single family or duplex. We are going to put a development in. and there is going to be some type of pump station over there. Conceivably. it could 50 be a bigg pump stqtion if we're required to ha a bigger --- facility, b~cause we've got more families on this end of the line. and I'm not trying to put you off. MRS. KILBURN-I understand perfectly. MR. O'CONNOR-This is something that is going to happen to the property. I don't know if that's a concern with the issue that's before the Board. whetber or not you approve something that allows us to have less units. as to the sewer issue. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? BILL COON MR. COON-Hi. My name ,is Bill Coon. I live on 32 Bayberry Drive. which is basically right across from the formerly Gary Bowen's pump station. I just have a question. That pump station there. I'm not sure of the capacity. but it is a fairly large one. and my question is. I'd like to know how noisy the one that's proposed could be. because this one of Bowen's. you can hear it. and I'm well away from it. but you can h~ar it very clearly when it kicks up. or the grinders kick up. MR. TURNER-Mr. Nace. can you answer his question? MR. NACE-I'm not sure if that is. he mentioned grinders. if it's a grinder pump station. or if there's a what's called a comminator coming into the pump station. Those are typically very noisy. The one thing that that pump station suffers from is that there's no screening around it. It sits there in the open. and any noise that comes out the top dbesn't have anything to impede it from traveling. We have se~ aside a fairly large chunk of land for the pump station we intend to put in. and there will be probably pine trees. because they give the best buffer. and they grow fastest. There will be a good tight screening of pine trees around the pump station. So. I won't kid you. there is some noise to the pumps. We're anticipating a f~irly deep station. and the further down the pumps are. the less that noise will come above grade. I've been around many. many pump stations. and with the proper design and the proper screening. that's normally not an issue. We have lots right back up to that. I wouldn't want to impinge upon those lots by creating something that's going to be a problem. MR. PHILO-Mr. Nace. they have a pumping station down there on Webster Avenue. They have a masonry unit around it, and it deadens the sound. There's people right there. If they build it properly. when I looked at that. 90 percent of that is exposed. of Gary Bowen's. and there's nothing. If there was a masonry building. It's a brick bUilding down there on Webster Avenue. MR. NACE-Okay. That's an entirely different type of pump station. but you're right. The structure around it deadens the noise. With the submersible station. most everything is in the ground. So. if it's done right. there should be even more buffer. or more dampening of the noise. MR. COON-I had attended that meeting in June. and Mr. Passarelli did say that he had lots right adjacent to the station. So. it would be in his best interest to make sure that the noise level and the odor would be miti~ated. So, I'm correct in assuming that when it hits Meadowbrook Road. it's going to take a turn south. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. COON-Okay. MR. NACE-The sewer? 51 HR. COON-R:f t. HR. NACE-We will have a force main directly into the force main from Bowens. HR. COON-Right. It won't be traveling north to Bowens. It'll be traveling the other way? HR. NACE-That is correct. HR. COON-Okay. and you did mention that there'd be another pump station up near Bay Road. but you didn't really point out where that might be located. HR. NACE-We're just in the process of doing a preliminary design for that. so I'm not really sure. but it's probably going to be somewhere down in this area here. okay. because we can't cross the stream with a gravity sewer. We've got to take all this area up here and collect it at low point. and pump it up into the gravity sewer. HR. COON-Okay. Thank you very much. HR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? HIKE HUTSENPILLER HR. HUTSENPILLER-Hy n~me is Hike Hutsenpiller. I Bayberry Drive. I don't know which lot I'm above. but comments. Notification of this meeting. were neighborhood. supposeq to be notified. or as an supposed to be notified of this meeting? live at 20 I have a few we. as a individual. HR. COON-There was a lot of us that didn't get notification. HR. TURNER-Within 500 feet. yes. you should have been notified. HR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. HR. HARTIN-It should go 500 feet. So. maybe if there were some neighbors that weren't wi thin the 500 foot boundary. then they wouldn't have got a notice. HR. HUTSENPILLER-A lot of my neighbors around me didn't get notices. HR. TURNER-Does your lot abut this property? HR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. HR. TURNER-How close? Where are you. in relation? Are you on the back part of Bayberry? JOHN HUGHES HR. HUGHES-It backs up to Lot Number 21 and 22. HR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. 21 and 22 are backed up against my lot. HR. TURNER-Okay. You $hould have been notified. HR. HARTIN-All I can say is it was calculated and the notices were sent to everyone within 500 feet. HR. HUTSENPILLER-Well. I think I can speak for the neighbors. There's a lot of us that didn't get anything. So. we don't read the little pUblications in the back of the paper. HR. HARTIN-No. That's not what I mean. There was a notice. 52 MR. TURNER- ey might l!lave been out of the 500 foot ran.-../ too. the ones on the north side. MR. COON-Can I just speak to that? I was in the Zoning Office today. and they were .entioning that there were 15 notices that weren't sent out. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Getting back to the development. here. In June. I think we talked a little bit about the prices of the houses. Have the prices changed very much since then? I think we talked high 90's. $100.000? Is it still the same price. approximately? Okay. Well. that's al~ well and good. I think I would much prefer to see single family' homes than duplexes butted up against my property. but I think X'd have to take issue with the detriment to the neighborhood. The neighborhood. it depends upon what you call detriment. I guess. I'm looking at my property value. and if you take the price of my house to replace it. if you had to. and compare it to the prices of the houses going right up against my property. there's a big discrepancy by. I'd say at least $50.000. So. something's got tp give on my part. and I'm going to lose value. is what it's coming down to. but it's not Mr. Passarelli's problem. I think it t¡Joes back to the Town taking a residential zone like we had and changing it to an MR-5. It truly smacks of lack of consideration on the Town's part to do something like that. Now. I moved into the. neighborhood about five years ago. so it could be just as much my fault for not looking at the zoning when I moved in. but be that as it may. we as a neighborhood are going to suffer. and properties values. I think. for this development to go forward. In regards to sheds. or outside storage structures. we are not allowed to have outside storage structures on our property. by deed restriction. Apparently there is one uP. which is very effectively screened. ~ut that's the exception to the rule. So. I just wanted to let the Board know. The phasing for the property. it's Phase I. II. and III? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. HUTSENPILLER-What ~appens. you get the variance for this phase here. which is single ~amily. and that's all well and good. What happens on Phase II an4 III. now? Will you have to get additional variances if you want single family homes again? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We would have to come back. MR. TURNER-They would have to come back. MR. HUTSENPILLER-So. really. if Phase I didn't really pan out too well. you could really come in with Phase II and III and put in what you're zoned to put in. correct? MR. TURNER-Yes. multifamily. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. MR. PHILO-If you're a neighbor there. when they got the sewer line in. would you be willing to go into the sewer district and hook in? MR. HUTSENPILLER-I would. if we could afford it. I don't know what it would cost to us to do that. but it would certainly make our lives easier. Most of pur septic systems work very well. but there is a substantially high water table in the spring time. ! would hook in. I don't know about you guys. MR. PHILO-What do you think. John? MR. TURNER-He's going to talk in a minute. I'm waiting for him. 53 Are you dOT HR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. I guess that's about all I had. HR. THOHAS-I have a qUestion for you. You stated that if these buildings were put in as single family units. it would bring the property values down. you said? HR. HUTSENPILLER-It would bring mY property value down. HR. THOHAS-Would you rather have a single family dwelling there. or a duplex behind you? HR. HUTSENPILLER-Well. that's what I'm saying. I'd rather have single family. but. again. Hr. Passarelli is just trying to develop a piece of property as best he can to satisfy all their needs. and we fully appreciate that. I guess what I'm saying is I'm a little concerned that the Town would re-zone a neighborhood such as ours and not give us do con$ideration in regards to what it would do to us by doing that. So. I just wanted to go on record as saying that. HR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. HR. PHILO-When was this re-zoned. Ted? HR. TURNER-1988. Octobår '88. HR. HUTSENPILLER-About the time I moved in. because I moved in the end of October. HR. TURNER-Did you? Yås. Hr. Hughes? HR. HUGHES-John Hughes of 375 Bay Road. adjoining this project here. One question I had. I would address the developer. In your deed restrictions. are you going to put a square foot restriction in your deed restrictions? HR. PASSARELLI-Well. this is only going to be 15 to 1800 square feet. HR. HUGHES-Yes. but I mean. you're going to have in there restrictions. Like. in my development I've got it restricted to 1800 and 2.000 square feet. HR. PASSARELLI-I really don't know what I'm going to do there. I don't know if it's going to be 1800 square feet. HR. HUGHES-No. I don't expect you to tell me it's going to be 1800 square feet. The only thing is. I'd hate to see it drop down to 1.000 or 1200 square feet. or something like that. once you got the approval. HR. PASSARELLI-One thousand square feet isn't big enough. HR. HUGHES-And I guess one other question I have for you is why are you asking for a variance rather than a change in zone? Seeing as how the duplexes and the townhouses aren't salable. the way you're doing it right now. with the variance. if the market for the single family doesn't hold uP. then you're going to go back to duplexes. HR. O'CONNOR-Not on these lots. HR. HUGHES-No. not on these. but on the remaining. if you want to go back to the multiple family. HR. O'CONNOR-Not going back. HR. TURNER-It's going to stay. 54 MR. O'CONNC It stays right now. -- MR. TURNER-They're not going to change that at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-What he's saying. though. is you're getting the best of both worlds by not changing the zone. because if you get the variance. then you can use it this way. but leave the zone the way it is and you can go back to mUltifamily. whatever the market demands. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think I can support an argument for change of zone. because we want to preserve the commercial use up here. That's the only way he's even going to get a shot at getting some mitigation for what he's got invested into the site. So. you end up with trying to draw a zone line through a person's property for the sole purpose and protection of one party. and that smacks of the definition of Spot Zoning. and it just doesn't go. When we take the variance. th~t property then becomes single family. In fact. so far the comm~nts that we've heard are that people don't necessarily like what we're doing. but they understand it's better than what we could do. and even. John. when you talk about. how big is it going to be. 160Ø square feet. Right now. we could put up a duplex with 900 squar$ feet on each side. and we could go into competition with the $69.000 duplex that's over in Dixon Heights. and everybody would end up with a lot of rental units that maybe is not going to be sometQing that they're going to be pleased with. It is an oddity. The Staff asked whether or not this was a unique piece of property. This piece of property. because of the present zoning. when the broad brush. in 1988. came across. because of the existing development. became an oddity. It became unique as opposed to maybe other MR-5 zones. or other MR-5 properties. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. HUGHES-Originally. we were all zoned residential there. and the Town went in and changéd zoning all the way from the College right straight up. MR. TURNER-They changed the whole corridor. MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-And that's what got everybody. everybody. That caught up with MR. HUGHES-So. explain just one thing. What you're afraid of if you want to maintain your offices out front here. and if you go for a change of zone. do you think you'd lose that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Th~re is no zone that gives you office and residential. or office as residential. particularly this mix. Even if you went for PUD. I don't have that book. but the number of the residential units to get this square footage of commercial is probably 200 residential units. It says. in your PUD zoning. you may have commercial. you may have a mix of commercial and residential on one contiguous site. and the thresholds are very high. and they're very limited as to the commercial that you can actually have. This actually gives the Board. it gives the Town. it gives the neighbor$. probably. the most input into what he's doing. It doesn't give you a blank check. Right now he could go in and apply for the duplexes. if the traffic holds UP. if the sewer system is approved. that's what you've got. MR. HUGHES-Well. I gue$s my biggest concern is. especially on these lots that are backed up. if nothing else. maybe that you could restrict those to the bigger sized homes. I don't want to break your arm either. and to give these people here a little more protection. 55 MR. PASSARE' t-you' re getting protection right now. bec, ;e I could build 92 ho'nres instead of 46. I don't see any argument from the neighbors. MR. HUGHES-You've given a lot. and I'm just asking for a little tiny bit more. MR. PHILO-John. I was going to ask you a question on that. On that sewer line. if he puts it in. would you guys be willing to hook in over there? MR. TURNER-It would depend on the cost. The Town might say no. MR. HUGHES-I'm sure most people would. It would depend on the cost. and how they were going to get to it. MR. PHILO-What I was trying to find out. John. is if there was a possibility of hooking you up. your area there. for sewer and just increase the sewer district. the people share the cost. it wouldn't be so much for one person. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand from Mr. Passarelli that he tried. a couple of years ago. or somebody tried a couple of years ago on his behalf. to get some people to cooperate and join the sewer system together. and he was not successful. Hr. Hartin has indicated that he wants to re-initiate that possibility. We said that we will cooperate. We don't want it to hold up the project because of it. We really think some of the players won't be interested in being players. The College ~s probably the biggest possible user. They shied away from. in fact they were brought into this sewer line that was gOing to go ~p Bay Road and shied away because of the expense. If you look at the ways in which they assess your capital assessory charges. because of the amount of their acreage. the amount of their buildings. HR. HARTIN-I think there's been a new approach to that. in that the COllege would be. there'd be a new designation for a college. It would be based on a new formula that may. MR. O'CONNOR-This we're at least going to get two shots at. One when the Town Board talks about the arch hook up to the system. whether we go in as an out of district user. or we go in as an extension of the existlng district. and I here that the neighbors are going to have an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to be included or not ~ncluded at that time. and secondly when the Planning Board gets into site plan. If they want to become involved in that proce$s. as long as we can get a clear decision. that it doesn't increase our cost. we're willing to cooperate. MR. TURNER-Anyone elsé wish to be heard in opposition? Public hearing's closed. Okay. PUBLIC HBARING CLOSED HR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? HRS. EGGLESTON-No. HR. TURNER-Okay. Does the Board want to discuss this matter right now. or what? Do you ~ant to make a decision tonight? HR. THOHAS-We've got a full agenda tomorrow night. HR. TURNER-I know. but the hour is late. HR. HARTIN-I don't want to be the harbinger of bad news, but I just feel it's. there has been allegation made of the 500 foot notification. I know it's a technicality. We had a neighbor call us today and said that they weren't notified. We explained the si tuation over the phone. She said that she would notify her 56 neighbors, she would call us back if there was a ~-,blem. We did not receive any call. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were there 15 that did not get notified? MR. MARTIN-Yes. there were. and. you know. it's happened in the past. and it's been explained to me that the Board has. if there's no problem with it. you've gone on. but if there is a problem. you've withheld. We haven't had any indication back today. a call back. there were allegations made tonight. I know the notices were sent. We can only ident~fY 15 that weren't. MR. PHILO-Mr. Turner. in that case. I'd like to make a motion that we table this until all the people are notified properly. and everybody has a fair chance to speak on this. MR. CARVIN-But you're going to be putting it off until the January meeting at this point. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Just to be fair with everybody. so there wouldn't be any legal. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I address that issue? As I understand it. that is a Staff obligation. That's not a developer's obligation. I also understand that the Staff has the leeway of making a good faith effort to make notification. MR. MARTIN-That was certainly made. MR. O'CONNOR-That the actual notification requirements are that the legal notice be posted. and I think that's the technical answer that I have. MR. MARTIN-That was done. MR. O'CONNOR-The practical answer I have. is there anybody that you folks are aware of that was going to come and speak that didn't come because they didn't get noticed? And I know most of you. and I don't mean to take advantage of you. but you were the same folks that were at the meetin;g. I. personally. presented this exact plan to everybody. and when I invited the parties to the meeting. I got a letter. I'll present that as maybe part of the record. to indicate on the record that I think everybody in the neighborhood actually has had notice of this plan. and has attended the meeting. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to. maybe. focus that even a little bit more. Has anybody in the opposition opposed the idea of having single family houses there. as opposed to the duplexes? In other words. I guess. I mean. I haven't heard anybody come up and say. gee whiz. we want to have the duplexes there. So. I mean. basically it boils down to a site plan review issue. as to whether the rest of the project moves ahead. and I think that the issue before us. really. is the Phase I. MR. TURNER-Phase I. That's it. MR. CARVIN-And I call it kind of a Spot Zoning. whether Mike likes that or not. and if we have the power to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-The thing is. we have to consider the builder. too. who's been going on for how long. now. with this. trying to get to the? MR. O'CONNOR-Some time the end of the year. MR. NACE-Last October. MR. O'CONNOR-Last October. actually. before that. 57 MR. PHILO-}' ear? -- MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. and if we put it off. MR. PASSARELLI-It costs me thousands of dollars of expense. every time I come to this meeting it costs me money. MR. PHILO-I understand~ MR. 0' CONNOR-I wrote to the neighborhood. and maybe I owe the neighborhood an apology. but we had the meeting. I have the letter in front of me. we had a meeting July 19th. and prior to that. I had put out a notice to everybody who was on the Tax Hap. and at the meeting. some of the people corrected their names and corrected their addresses and whatnot. and I followed up that meeting with a letter of July 7th to. I think. 18 different parties. most of whom being the neighbors. a couple not being the neighbors. being Bay Headows Golf Course and the Adirondack Girl Scouts. to the south and to the east of the property. and explained to them exactly what we were doing. even in that second letter. and I say I apologize to the neighborhood because at that time I said to them I would get back to them. in fact. I think I told them in this letter that we were on an agenda. and then the night that Parisi pulled it. the day of the meeting. or the day before the meeting. I forget which. Robert Parisi. the fo~mer Zoning Administrator pulled it off an agenda. I called a couple of the neighbors and asked them to spread the word that it was pulled from the agenda and that we weren't going to go near it until we straightened out our problems with Hr. Parisi. and I didn't get back to them after that. so I apologize to them. but this also is a little bit of short notice. even because we met with Jim. to bè honest with you. with Hr. Hartin. and we walked out of a meeting in the afternoon and were told that we weren't going to be required to have a variance. and the next day we were told by faxed letter that we ~ going to have a variance. and I understand. he just thought about it and said. this is a safer way to go. and I. on behalf of the applicant. said maybe it is a safer way to go. Lets get it on and get it over with. MR. HARTIN-And also in that meantime I conferred with Ted. also. during that period of time. MR. O'CONNOR-And Jim. Hr. Hartin. to accommodate us. got us on this agenda on short notice. So. we didn't have time to get back to the file and do a lot of things that I probably will do when we get into site plan review. but I really think the question of notice has been handled very amply. and I think the Town Staff actually has complied with the requirements. HR. HARTIN-A good faith effort was certainly made. and it came down to. you all know Sue. she does this. She does her best to pull this off the Tax Haps. The Tax Haps. from page to page. will change scale. and so on. and some have insets. or inserts. and all that. and those are very hard to follow sometimes. and it was an inset that was missed. The inset included 15 properties around the cul-de-sac. I think. and the Bay Bridge development across the street. and that was the technicality that was missed. but certainly a good faith effort was made. MR. PHILO-Can I ask some of the people back there that were here as neighbors. what is your feeling on this? MR. HUTSENPILLER-Well.my thoughts are that. we really can't speak for the people aren't Qere. because we don't know whether they got notices or not. Hike Hutsenpiller. Again. my thoughts are that the people that aren't here. it's hard for us to answer for them because I myself only found out two days ago. via a conversation my wife happened to have with one of the neighbors. who said. by the way. we got a notice two weeks ago that there's a meeting concerning this property on this night. and so we're a close neighborhood. but we don't always stay in contact with one another. 58 -- MR. PHILO-What I'm trying to say is. if we vote on this tonight. what is your feelings? MR. HUTSENPILLER-I think you're slighting people that aren't here. I mean. I don't want to stop Mr. Passarelli. believe me. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you honestly think your neighbors didn't know? MR. HUTSENPILLER-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-We talked to the one lady. and she said she would call the other 15 people. It was a woman in Bay Bridge Development. That's all I can tell you. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. Bay Bridge is across the road. Personally. I don't know anybody over there. MR. MARTIN-She said she would get back to us if there was anybody with a problem. and we didn't hear from her. MR. TURNER-Valenti's development. I think he's referring to. MR. JARVIS MR. JARVIS-Diane Kimmy. I believe you spoke to. MR. O'CONNOR-Where does she live. Mr. Jarvis? MR. JARVIS-Right across the street from us. MR. O'CONNOR-She lives in Bayberry Court. not Bay Bridge. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-How many homes are there in Bayberry Court? MR. JARVIS-Fifteen. I think it is. MR. 0' CONNOR-And how miany are represented tonight? MR. JARVIS-Seven. MR. PHILO-Seven. MR. 0' CONNOR-We are trying to get on the January agenda of the Planning Board. to get this thing gOing forward. I think the Statute has been complied with. I'm going to assume that risk on behalf of the applicant. I would ask the Board to act this evening. HR. 0' CONNOR-I know that were in attendance. I think Richard Hughes. on behalf of Richard and Ann Hughes. Mr. MacMillan was there. Margaret Girard. who is not present tonight. who is Jim Girard's wife. I don't know if either of the Curly's were there. I think they were away. Tom Flanagan was there. I'm not sure if Mary was there. The Laphams were not there. Mr. Jarvis was there. John and Nancy Allen. ~omebody was there from that family. They're not here tonight. She:!!ü. here? Adirondack Girl Scouts were not there. but I saw Cindy Hess is here tonight. and she was there. Al Otkin was there. but is not here tonight. MR. JARVIS-He knew about it. MR. O'CONNOR-He knew about it. Kimmy is the person that you spoke to. John and Wilma Hughes. John is here. William Gering. I don't think he was there because we didn't have his name. He was a new property owner. Was Nancy Dobert there? Michael O'Neal was there. and Mr. Hutsenpiller was there. So. ·of the 18 at the June meeting. probably 14 people were present. or even 16 were present. 59 The only tw .hat weren't present. I guess. were Curly ~ Laphams were the onrr two that!weren't there. So. we had 16 ou~of the 18 represented at that time. MR. TURNER-Yes. I'm satisfied that everybody's aware. that this has been going on and it's going to come to fruition. and here we are. and I think we're going to vote on it. Motion's in order. then. I just want to get my facts. here. right. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman. I would also note that I have a letter from Mrs. Balfour which verifies what she told you. MO'1'IOR TO APPROVE USE VARIA_CE RO. 138-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: For Phase I of the prQposed project. which fronts on Bay Road on the west and Meadowbrook Road on the east. The applicant has owned the property since March of 1989. and has tried to market it as zoned. Testimony has shown that a reasonable return is not possible if the property is used as zoned. The market trend has indicated a down turn on multifamily residences and an upswing to single family units. The applicant has shown concerns for the neighbors by increasing lot size and reducing density of Phase I. which borders existing residential development. The residents of the existing residential neighborhood have testified as to their approval of the project as proposed. when compared to multi family residences. which would be the allowed use if it was used as zoned. There would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood character. The environment would be enhanced by connections to public facilities. namely the Queensbury Sewer District and the Town water supply. Duly adopted this 16th day of December. 1992. by the following vote: AYES. Mr. Philo. Mr. ¡Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES. NONE MR. TURNER-We've got one more piece of business. We have to table Bulgers. MOTIO_ TO TABLE AREA VARIA_CB _0. 72-1992 GERALD & WAMDA BULGER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: At Glen Lake. at the request of the applicant. until the January meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of December. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman 60